Re: Mathematica vs. MACSYMA

From: Albert Reiner (areiner_at_tph.tuwien.ac.at)
Date: 12/21/04 

Date: 21 Dec 2004 16:08:33 +0100

[Matthias <no@spam.pls>, 21 Dec 2004 09:51:25 +0100]:
> As far as I know, MACSYMA is still sold commercially. There is a free
> version based on oder sources called Maxima. I've only looked at it
> briefly. My impression was that in terms of documentation, features,
> bug-removal it has quite a while to go before it matches Mathematica
> (or Maple).

That is definitely the case.

The question is what the OP really wants to do: If one CAS supports
everything s/he wants to do out of the box, and if it is known that
the results can generally be trusted, then s/he should go with that
CAS.

Given the sheer size of Mathematica and the former MathSource, chances
of finding some code for some type of problem are much higher than
with Maxima. However, Mathematica is known to get many types of
things wrong (e.g. when branch cuts are concerned) so in my experience
you always end up programming tests and writing tools to assess the
reliability of the results Mathematica gives you.

If that is also the OP's experience - and the statement "I'm tired of
buggy Mathematica" may indicate that is indeed the case - then one
should weigh the costs of writing those tests in Mathematica and of
programming the needed functionality in Maxima.

I personally made the switch from Mathematica to Maxima after several
years of using the former, and I have not regretted it. Availability
of the source code, some modest Lisp skills on my part, and a most
helpful mailing list are an important factor, but mainly it is because
Maxima as a programming language (with some simple auxiliaries added)
allows one to avoid a lot of problems that are inherent in
Mathematica's design. That said, Maxima is far from perfect, and my
growing familiarity with it has made me realize not only the marked
similarities between the older program and the younger one but also a
couple of points where Mathematica really got it right.

> Maxima might be a very cool project if you want to learn about CAS and
> are not afraid of slightly old-style LISP code.

You do not need to know any Lisp (and certainly no LISP - that
spelling died long ago) for using Maxima. You can access the Lisp
process, though, if you want to, but you will not see anything of it
without explicitly asking for it.

> If you are just a CAS _user_ and happy with a slightly out-of-date
> software you'll be better off if you _simply_ _don't_ _update_ your
> current version of Mathematica. While not as cool as Maxima (Lisp,
> source code, long history), it is the more practical solution right
> now.

Whether that is an option depends on the OP's circumstances: campus
licenses, ...

Albert.

Relevant Pages

  • Axiom or Maxima?
    ... question: There are those 2 computer algebra systems: OpenAxiom and ... Maxima; both are based on Lisp. ... Which is at the same level as Wolfram's Mathematica? ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • si(x) in Maxima (Was: Mathematica vs. Lisp)
    ... and I also need the small-k series expansions of those expressions, ... yield the end result in a usable form, ... If I were doing this in Mathematica, ... does anyone have an example of using a Maxima result for a lambda ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • si(x) in Maxima (Was: Mathematica vs. Lisp)
    ... and I also need the small-k series expansions of those expressions, ... yield the end result in a usable form, ... If I were doing this in Mathematica, ... does anyone have an example of using a Maxima result for a lambda ...
    (sci.math.symbolic)
  • Re: Is the 50g the end of the line for advanced calculators?
    ... It takes a pc to run Maxima, an open source alternative to Mathematica. ... black holes actually are impossible ... It now appears that much of cosmology theory is in ...
    (comp.sys.hp48)
  • Re: Axiom or Maxima?
    ... Francogrex wrote: ... Maxima; ... Mathematica is clearly far far above the level of Maxima and Axiom in terms of price. ... Many people use CAS through front ends that are not written in Lisp at all, but in C, Tcl, emacs-lisp, TeX, etc. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)