TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Mathics 7.0 – Open-source alternative to Mathematica

223 点作者 adius5 个月前

8 条评论

ktpsns5 个月前
I watch this project since a few years and they make good progress. To whoever is interested in open source Computer Algebra Systems, there are of course plenty of more mature solutions. Classical ones such as GNU Octave or Maxima but also &quot;modern ones&quot; such as SAGEmath, Symbolics.jl or sympy. In particular, there is a broad range from symbolic libraries such as GiNaC up to &quot;battery included&quot; IDEs like SAGEmath. The community is vivid and amazing, for instance SAGEmath basically pioneered the web notebook interface which today brought us Jupyter in all its fashions.<p>I personally love the LISPy style of Mathematica (MMA) but of course it is not the (only) the core which makes MMA so powerful but the super large library which has not only instance industry-leading solutions for basic topics such as symbolic integration, 2D&#x2F;3D graphics or finite element methods but also a plethora of special purpose domains such as bioinformatics. I guess Mathics has a good clone of the core but lacks, of course, all the libraries. It is, by the way, the same logic as with Matlab and its many &quot;toolkits&quot; compared to the numpy clone. However, the python movement brought many novel codes into the numpy world which no more work on Matlab.
评论 #42352710 未加载
评论 #42350117 未加载
评论 #42350154 未加载
amai5 个月前
It seems to be based on sympy: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sympy.org&#x2F;en&#x2F;index.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sympy.org&#x2F;en&#x2F;index.html</a>
WillyWonkaJr5 个月前
If you only want individual use, Wolfram Cloud is free to use. I think files delete after 30 days or something. Also the Wolfram Engine is a free way to use Mathematica via command line. Hey, its something...
评论 #42352978 未加载
评论 #42352869 未加载
dwheeler5 个月前
A simpler intro to Mathics is here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mathics.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mathics.org&#x2F;</a>
deknos5 个月前
why do i think this will be integrated into sagemath? :D
评论 #42350607 未加载
bmitc5 个月前
Software engineers will do anything to not pay for software.
评论 #42353256 未加载
评论 #42353415 未加载
评论 #42354737 未加载
评论 #42359575 未加载
SubjectToChange5 个月前
Mathematica is freely available on the Raspberry Pi[1] and most universities have site-wide licenses. The &quot;Home &amp; Hobby&quot; licenses aren&#x27;t even that expensive, only $195&#x2F;year for a subscription or $390 for a perpetual license (and only $175 for renewals)[2]. And honestly, for those who are interested in tinkering but can&#x27;t afford those prices, cracked copies are neither hard to find nor hard to install.<p>Personally I am quite fond of Mathematica (well, the &quot;Wolfram Language&quot;) and I&#x27;m happy to pay for the hobby license price. Not only do I think I&#x27;m getting my money&#x27;s worth, but I think supporting mathematical software is a &quot;good cause&quot; to put money behind. Moreover, I&#x27;ve never understood why people like amateur photographers will often spend more on tools like Adobe CC than many programmers (amateur or otherwise) spend on their tools period. Or why someone would spend $20-40+&#x2F;month on various subscription services only to balk at $200-$400 licensing fees. Then again, I spend more time in Mathematica than I do in almost any other program installed on my computer.<p>However there is still an important place for (F)OSS mathematical software. As comprehensive as Mathematica usually is, it still has some significant shortcomings in advanced mathematics. In particular, I have a hard time believing it will ever fulfill those more &quot;niche&quot; areas of mathematics for two reasons. First and foremost, the ROI drops off a cliff for more advanced and&#x2F;or esoteric fields. Second of all, the Wolfram Language already has 6000+ built in functions, so adding hundreds more to comprehensively support of something like Group Theory just doesn&#x27;t make sense. Sure, they could be supported via packages, but that comes at the cost of performance (no first class support in the kernel) and usability (users have to go out of their way to use it).<p>Therefore, (F)OSS software like GAP, M2, and PARI&#x2F;GP serve an important role in &quot;rounding out&quot; the gaps in the wolfram language. In my case, I contribute to FOSS projects an equal amount to whatever I spend on my Mathematica license. Or when monetary contributions to a project are not so straight forward, I try and contribute my time and skills improving them.<p>To be frank, I don&#x27;t care much for projects trying to replicate Mathematica&#x27;s functionality. Of course people are still going to develop and improve them, which at the very least puts some pressure on Wolfram Research to constantly improve basic functionality, but it will probably take one or two decades for said projects to replicate what Mathematica&#x2F;WL is today.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wolfram.com&#x2F;raspberry-pi&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wolfram.com&#x2F;raspberry-pi&#x2F;</a> [2]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wolfram.com&#x2F;mathematica&#x2F;pricing&#x2F;home-hobby&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wolfram.com&#x2F;mathematica&#x2F;pricing&#x2F;home-hobby&#x2F;</a>
评论 #42354748 未加载
评论 #42354483 未加载
1R0535 个月前
one of the annoying things about Mathematica is that all functions are crammed into the same namespace and that there is no overloading with different parameterization options...
评论 #42352192 未加载