3 ms·

Mathematica is a very complex piece of software. As an ex-physicist there's no way I would trust this completely unknown open source alternative.

• reikonomusha 10y ago
  But it's open source, and you can review what you'd like. You're unable to do that with Mathematica.
  • tagrun 10y ago
    Except that's not what we're being paid for and frankly, most physicists don't have time or knowledge to do that (our reality is "publish or perish", unfortunately).
  • oneloop 10y ago
    I have other things to do with my life, fortunately.
• gaur 10y ago
  You shouldn't trust Mathematica either. It has had bugs in the past [0]. Also it didn't have a proper "undo" feature until a year or so ago, which is pretty embarrassing. [0] http://www.ams.org/notices/201410/rnoti-p1249.pdf http://www.ams.org/notices/201410/rnoti-p1249.pdf
  • tagrun 10y ago
    I don't think his point was "Mathematica contains zero bugs".
  • oneloop 10y ago
    My point was "this piece of software surely has more bugs than Mathematica". What's your point? That because they both have a non-zero number of bugs we should be equally suspicious of both?
    • gaur 10y ago
      > My point was "this piece of software surely has more bugs than Mathematica". It sounded like your point was "I trust Mathematica, but not this open-source CAS". Otherwise you would have just said "I don't trust CASs".