3 ms·
Respectfully, I disagree with that premise. That clearly hasn’t happened with OpenSage, Maxima, or half a dozen other old open source computer algebra systems,
by vtail 4y ago
Respectfully, I disagree with that premise. That clearly hasn’t happened with OpenSage, Maxima, or half a dozen other old open source computer algebra systems, many of which were around as long as Mathematica.
If the open sourcing a system works as you describe - why haven’t those system received even a tenth of a polish that Mathematica has, over all these years?
I have my answer: because, even with all its warts, producing something of Mathematica quality requires tremendous coordinated efforts of hundreds of highly qualified professionals who need to be tightly coordinated.
If you try the “next best thing” - a few core enthusiasts plus a large number of users who do occasional contribution you can get to (an impressive) quality level of the above mentioned alternatives, but not higher.
- omaranto 4y agoIt's true that Mathematica has more polish than Sage, but conversely Sage has vastly more pure math functionality than Mathematica (Mathematica seems to me to have focused on data analytics and neglected mathematics), so the projects just have different focus.
- dfee 4y agoYou’re missing the ingredient of time. Software (as an industry) was born with the right structure. That’s why it moves so quickly. Other industries (incl. research) need to fix internal problems before they can accelerate, i.e. tightening feedback loops such as procurement cycles. Over time, institutions who can do more with less will outmaneuver even Wolfram. The future of the world isn’t limited by one guy leading one company.