The 'expression based' system of maxima has its charm.
Consider the following.
%i26) f: x^3;
3
(%o26) x
(%i27) df(x):= diff(f,x);
(%o27) df(x) := diff(f, x)
(%i28) val(f,t):= subst(x=t,f);
(%o28) val(f, t) := subst(x = t, f)
(%i29) f: x^4;
4
(%o29) x
(%i30) df(x);
3
(%o30) 4 x
(%i31) val(f,2);
(%o31) 16
(%i32) val(df(x),5);
(%o32) 500
-sen
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Sheldon E. Newhouse | e-mail: sen1 at math.msu.edu |
| Mathematics Department | |
| Michigan State University | telephone: 517-355-9684 |
| E. Lansing, MI 48824-1027 USA | FAX: 517-432-1562 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Wolfgang Lindner wrote:
> Andrey,
>
> thanks for the link. Yes, I tried it some time ago, but I think that wxMaxima is better
> suited for my 'clients'. As far as I know the genuine Windows version of TeXmacs is no
> longer supported, some of my students had problems running the cygwin version, so I
> stopped using TeXmacs .. using wxMaxima as GUI they directly feel at home - only my
> experience.
>
> HTH Wolfgang
>
> "Andrey G. Grozin" <A.G.Grozin at inp.nsk.su> schrieb:
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Wolfgang Lindner wrote:
>>> (wx)Maxima is a wunderful product.
>>> So please let me formulate 2 wishes for future releases of wxMaxima.
>>>
>>> W1: there should be a button 'delete all output'
>>> W2: there should be the possibility 'to delay evaluation',
>>> e.g. loading a file 'without auto evaluation of input lines'.
>>> So one could walk stepwise along the inputs from the beginning or elsewhere.
>>
>> Both of these features are present in the TeXmacs interface to maxima. And
>> the quality of formula rendering in TeXmacs is higher. Have you tried it?
>>
>> Andrey
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
>