Wolfram Mathematica - The Leading Knowledge Engine with Associations
April 26, 2021
Wolfram Mathematica - The Leading Knowledge Engine with Associations
Score 10 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Overall Satisfaction with Wolfram Mathematica
In our organization we use Wolfram Mathematica as a knowledge engine. The knowlegde is rudimentally used as associations and early or late rules. We enjoy the enornous versatility of the Mathematica libraries for mathematical problems. We focus on optimization, computing and representation of problems and solutions. Mathematica offers a high degree of coverage of Mathematics by the corpui of Wolfram Mathematica. The mCAX system does not offer everything but it opens the fields of Mathematics wide and often deep. As for partial differential equations we favour that there are benchmarks avialable already freely over the internet to compare Wolfram Mathematica powers to that of competitors or even harder sometimes to standardization library. State-of-the-art does not come from little efforts and single scientist nowadays and large scale cluster computing is still not all what makes up innovations. We use often the convolution powers of Mathematica because that is the Mathematics of the future from our standpoint.
Wolfram Mathematica provide a 5th generation language with many features agglomerated from the very best programmatic paradigms. The philosophy knowledge is what works is overcome by the eclectic means for selecting the best performing ones for the orientation of high efficiencies. Wolfram Mathematica provides a satisfying amount of educational and deep Math knowledge and numerical routines. We enjoy the covering features set for visualization. The sets of data analysis and as well graphical as geometrical calculations are convincing. We have great success with the interactivity features making all the knowledge clear and transparent for customers.
- Wolfram Mathematica is great in AI and KI data analysis.
- Wolfram Mathematica is great in solving of any kind of mathematical problem for examples PDEs.
- Wolfram Mathematica has efficient and versatile feature for visualization problems.
- Wolfram Mathematica offers a selection of the efficients programming paradigms is therefore one of the first choices for programming on the 5th level of programming languages.
- The notebook interface is a to strict choice for the in and out paradigma. Hidding information may be a better choice sometimes for a better understanding. It is not well MathML friendly.
- Mathematica is too properitary. Other venturers are able to integrate user initiative better into the corpui the represent. It is too slow for many information innovation and in part to restricted to a tough internet integration. Efforts for integration of for example information markups from standards of the ISOOSI stack and else are missing or to tedious to program from scratch.
- Mathematica is not very well at import and export. Too many formats of interest are missing and there is much knowledge hidden behind for a better efficiency.
- Mathematica focusses to much on properitary formats like notebook and cdf. Microsoft is far ahead and has survived the fears hidden behind that behaviour.
- Other decision are not handed open enough to the users of Wolfram Mathematica for example with the integrated use of standards in Mathematics.
- Buying Wolfram Mathematica is expense and there is vast amount of general content with that purchase.
- Wolfram Mathematica cost of two orders of magnitude more than comparable systems with extension libraries except the direct contrahents and has therefore to deliver much more in return. That is really hard to achieve for everybody.
- Wolfram Mathematica is in need to be customized for business standards but offer best mathematical and programming standards. Many field are just waiting for the change to Wolfram Mathematica.
- Wolfram Mathematica is not the choice of several leaders in there markets. Following this leaders in hard and expensive despite it might result in highest ROis. Properitaries are always a drawback for high and efficient ROIs.
- Wolfram Mathematica needs efficient workarounds and deep knowledge to reproduce well known and established methodologies in knowledge centerer market.
There is no other alternative that Maple from Maplesoft all over. There are other systems for mCAx that do not offer the richness and coverage of mathematical features. For example Matlab that restricts inself to matrice calculation and only the the right set of addon library get comparable. Maplesoft does not have the attitudes that Wolfram has and therefore only in the publishing sector Maplesoft is ahead in offering features closer to the standards of textbooks. The field of publishing makes the difference between both. Maplesoft.
Maple is a weird mixture of procedural with functional, while Mathematica is a weird mixture of procedural with rewriting. So Maple leaves the customers with more problems than Mathematica does from the point of view of Mathematica users. Both vendorers offer booklet for comparison purposes that both leave more decisions to the reader than the pure reading of the systems descriptions of the products themself. It is hard to the describe the systems in short with the aim of sorrow. So it is a hard matter of selection what to compare from both package sets. Making use of both gives always the best learning effects compared to reading comparisons.
A great problem for the companies is that MatLab, Java or Python are more popular overall even though this system do grow into comparison far beyond technical computing purposes. Because of the lower investment in money the popularity is high and the community grows in industrial countries and those desiring to get industrialized. As long as there is no common standard the discrepancies will remain. Getting standards is not a small or short deal. One of the question is, are mCAx bolide system really diserable or are small subpackage more efficient and effective overall?
Do you think Wolfram Mathematica delivers good value for the price?
Yes
Are you happy with Wolfram Mathematica's feature set?
Yes
Did Wolfram Mathematica live up to sales and marketing promises?
Yes
Did implementation of Wolfram Mathematica go as expected?
Yes
Would you buy Wolfram Mathematica again?
Yes