Argument in favor of Maxima vs mathematica / maple


> -----Original Message-----
> From: maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu [mailto:maxima-
> bounces at math.utexas.edu] On Behalf Of Stavros Macrakis
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:20 AM
> To: nicolas.pettiaux at ael.be
> Cc: Maxima list
> Subject: Re: [Maxima] Argument in favor of Maxima vs mathematica / maple
> 
> On 1/3/07, Nicolas Pettiaux <nicolas.pettiaux at ael.be> wrote:
> > ...he answered that the language underlying
> > maxima was "the old LISP" while maple and mathematica were developped
> > using more modern technologies, hence, more powerful or at least
> > valuable for a student to learn...

In fact, studying the internals of Maple and Mathematica, if they were
available, would show the student how to implement a somewhat cut-down Lisp
system.

Greenspun's 10th law applies.

> 
> If Mathematica and Maple gave you access to the underlying
> implementation, I can see how that would be an argument.  But their
> implmentations are, as far as I know, completely opaque to the user,
> so I don't see how it matters.  Perhaps your colleague is thinking
> about the use of packages *written in the Mathematica language
> itself*, where there is arguably some advantage.
> 
> Maxima was originally written in MacLisp, and does not take advantage
> of Common Lisp in many ways, but at least you do have access to source
> code, obscure and messy as it may be.
> 
>                -s
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima