On Jan 25, 2013, at 1:34 AM, Richard Fateman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> ... > I think that perfection depends on the context. Though they are > not my areas of primary interest, I suspect the Mathematica is pretty > good for some kinds of graphics (though I find it clumsy sometimes, > that is probably my unfamiliarity with the nuances of Graphics objects), > and maybe linear cellular automata. > There seems to be a fairly strong consensus that for numerical > programming there are other competitors favored in engineering schools.
At least some of that "fairly strong consensus" may be ill-founded today, after Mathematica's numerical methods have evolved.
Typically I encounter engineers and scientists who assure me that M****b is oh so much better than Mathematica, yet they have never actually tried Mathematica in a serious way or looked into efficiency comparisons. They were raised on M****b and so they're convinced it's the be-all and end-all for numerical work, and how dare anybody try to tell them otherwise -- any evidence to the contrary be damned.
While one can compile certain functions within Mathematica, of course it's difficult for any interpreted language to compete for running efficiency with a compiled language.
--- Murray Eisenberg email@example.com Mathematics & Statistics Dept. Lederle Graduate Research Tower phone 413 549-1020 (H) University of Massachusetts 413 545-2838 (W) 710 North Pleasant Street fax 413 545-1801 Amherst, MA 01003-9305