4 ms·
Agreed. I'm not sure how many people that are the developer only type on here (non engineers or scientists)realize how nice the tooling can be in Mathematica. A
by 3rdAccount 8y ago
Agreed. I'm not sure how many people that are the developer only type on here (non engineers or scientists)realize how nice the tooling can be in Mathematica. A corporation with basically 1 product, ~800 employees, and 3 decades of software development can do an awful lot. It ain't perfect though and the cost is crazy. It's good to have and know free alternatives (even if inferior) so you have fallback software to use if you want to leave your job and be a contractor.
My buddy is a GIS analyst/technician (master's degree in it) and a lot of experience in ESRI Arc-GIS, which is insanely expensive. Both he and several colleagues have QGIS installed and are learning it in case they go solo and don't have a client with an ESRI system.
- lscharen 8y agoJust so people know, Esri sells a Personal Advanced Desktop license for non-commercial use for (I think) $100/yr. https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis-for-personal-use https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis-for-person... Normally an Advanced Desktop license with multiple extensions would run well north of $10,000/yr with an initial purchase price about 4x that amount.
- 3rdAccount 8y agoYea, $40k is insane for an individual. $100 a year would be fine if commercial. To me even that is dumb. Someone has to pay to use your software for hobby and non-paying work? That just sounds wrong lol.
- madengr 8y agoMathematica isn’t expensive, in the scheme of things. Some engineering software such as Cadence can run $100k/year/seat for maintenance. I don’t even use Mathematica much, but keep paying the $500/year maintenance, because when I do need it, I really need it.
- 3rdAccount 8y agoAgreed it is much cheaper than something like Cadence, but it is still a no go for most people doing solo work.