I can assure you that many mathematicians use mathematica in thier research; I used to. But one of the many appeals of Sage is that the source is open/checkable - I have had referrees mention that as desirable on some of my previous mathematica-based papers.
In my opinion the gap between Sage and mathematica is narrowing at an impressive pace. For my research purposes Sage is already clearly superior; of course I only use a very small fraction of either system. For teaching/demonstrations/computer labs Mathematica still has the edge for most purposes, but the pros and cons are not easy to add up in a one-dimensional way. Actually I think it will be much harder to catch up with Matlab in the areas where it is strong, but I still like our odds in the long run. Most likely Sage will only win over some subset of users with particular needs, but that would be a healthier software ecosystem. Consider as a parting thought that Sage has only existed for 1/10 of the time of those systems. M. Hampton On Jul 12, 1:06 pm, saucerful <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is called flamebait, and I am guessing thats why no one has > responded yet. But its been in the back of my mind since I first read > it yesterday, and here is what I have to say... > > I just kind of started following SAGE but the most obvious response to > this sort of criticism is to point out that it could have been made of > a large number of open source projects when they were in their infancy > (Linux, X11, Gnome, Firefox, etc). The only significant distinction > between those projects and SAGE is that (for the most part) they don't > attempt to implement algorithms that could be very different depending > on come amount of research. And Wolfram has definitely hired people > who are researching how to produce the most efficient and cutting edge > algorithms... > > But in the realm of pure mathematics, no research professors are using > Mathematica, are they? (Correct me if i'm wrong, I am an undergrad). > The only thing I see people using it for is to quickly graph > something, solve some equations, etc. Things that SAGE is at least on > par with Mathematica for. The only reason people are using > Mathematica for this stuff is because its what they are used to and > the universities pay for it so we don't see its astronomical cost. On > the other hand, the actual research mathematics software is by and > large open source, often just some C code on some professor or grad > students page that doesn't even have a license attached to it. I > think that this is going to be where SAGE does well because once more > and more grad students (professors to be) know a platform like SAGE, > they will make use of SAGE as it is much better for productivity and > ease than writing everything from scratch. > > Another reason why open source and math work well together is that > when your users are mathematicians their is a very high chance they > will contribute back (to the core of the project when they want > something implemented/fixed) than say, the average Firefox user. And > from their its just a snowball effect. > > On the other hand, I don't know anything about the components of > Mathematica that applied math/physics people use, or how they compare > to what's in SAGE. But to dominate in the realm of pure math is quite > a worthy goal, don't ya think? > > On Jul 11, 7:23 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > There is an interesting comment about Sage on sci.math.symbolic from > > "Vladimir Bondarenko", who can be a bit of a pain in the ****, but > > does sometimes have some sensible things to say. It followed a > > complaint from a Solaris user about how WRI are treating Unix users > > of Mathematica, by not updating the Unix version as much as the > > Windows/Linux/Mac version, despite charging a higher price for HP-UX > > and Solaris versions. > > > I'm interested in there is any evidence the gap between Sage and > > Mathematica is widening or narrowing. Have there been any independent > > reviews of how the gap is changing? > > > ****************************************************************************************** > > From "Vladimir Bondarenko" on sci.math.symbolic > > ****************************************************************************************** > > We did not have the chance and resource to test SAGE yet. > > > Still, based on its components (Maxima etc), and our internal > > calculations about Maxima, we now do not feel that spending > > some dozens human-years could have shorten tangibly the > > conspicuous gap between the commercial CAS systems like > > Mathematica and the current open source CAS projects. > > > I realize that the SAGE folks keep developing also their own > > (hopefully, efficient) code. Still, at the same span of time, > > say, Wolfram Research pushes their Mathematica even further. > > > So, maybe, in time, the gap will only grow. > > > Of course, one can say that, in some years, WRI could go > > out of the stage (God forbid!) while the open source CASs > > will be continued. Somehow, this is about predicting the > > future. > > > Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. > > > -- Niels Bohr > > > Best wishes, > > > Vladimir Bondarenko > > > ****************************************************************************************** > > ****************************************************************************************** --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
