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?
Are you happy with Wolfram Mathematica's feature set?
Did Wolfram Mathematica live up to sales and marketing promises?
Did implementation of Wolfram Mathematica go as expected?
Would you buy Wolfram Mathematica again?
We are the judgement that Wolfram Mathematica is despite many critics based on the paradigms selected a mark in the fields of the markets for computations of all kind. Wolfram Mathematica is even a choice in fields where other bolide systems reign most of the market. Wolfram Mathematica offers rich flexibility and internally standardizes the right methodologies for his user community. Wolfram Mathematica is not cheap and in need of a hard an long learner journey. That makes it weak in comparison with of-the-shelf-solution packages or even other programming languages. But for systematization of methods Wolfram Mathematica is far in front of almost all the other. Scientist and interested people are able to develop themself further and Wolfram Matheamatica users are a human variant for themself. The reach out for modern mathematics based science is deep and a unique unified framework makes the whole field of mathematics accessable comparable to the brain of Albert Einstein. The paradigms incorporated are the most efficients and consist in assembly on the market. The mathematics is covering and fullfills not just education requirements but the demands and needs of experts.
Mathematica is incompatible with other systems for mCAx and therefore the borders between the systems are hard to overcome. Wolfram Mathematica should be consider one of the more open systems because other code can be imported and run but on the export side it is rathe incompatible by design purposes. A better standard for all that might solve the crisis but there is none in sight. Selection of knowledge of what works will be in the future even more focussed and general system might be one the lossy side. Knowledge of esthetics of what will be in the highest demand in necessary and Wolfram is not a leader in this field of science. Mathematics leves from gathering problems from application fields and less from the glory of itself and the formalization of this.