Is it worth bothering with this?

>>16725229 (OP)
Yes. I don’t want to do tedious matrix calculations by hand. I passed my linear algebra course years ago, so nobody cares.

>>16725229 (OP)
Mathematica is better than wolframalpha.com. The latter is free, and gives one an idea or a taste of the former. The former is virtually unlimited and the latter is limited.

>>16725229 (OP)
of course, faakhead

>>16725229 (OP)
lmao no
Want symbolic stuff? Maple. Want numeric stuff? Matlab. Want specialized stuff? Pari, Rocq formerly Coq, Oscar, etc.

Mathematica is slow, badly documented, Stephen Wolfram is a cunt, and the drm is the shit nugget on top.

>>16725229 (OP)
Just get Sage. It's basically a hybrid of a lot of other free math packages and uses a real, mature, fully-featured general purpose language (Python) instead of some garbage broken homebrew scripting language with retarded syntax and zero functionality outside the raw basics and zero value outside that one program. If for whatever dumb reason you need Mathematica too you can even use it from within Sage.

>>16725229 (OP)
I heard MatLab is the way to go.

>>16725444
Octave won't bankrupt OP

>>16725436
>a real, mature, fully-featured general purpose language
>(Python)
can you guys at least own your horrible language choices instead of doubling down on them and embarrassing yourself further

>>16725229 (OP)
Was hilarious seeing him seethe at those two French guys' ML model that can solve PDEs just as well as his software

>>16725229 (OP)
yeah wolfman is based

>>16726564
The reason Python is popular is BECAUSE it was always a great language

>>16725229 (OP)
it gives me nice graphs, but I think it shits the bed beyond semi-basic 2d let alone 3d graphs

>>16727054
Pythons typing can be pretty rough sometimes. i think a lot of the problems come from its relative accessibility allowing a lot of really rough software engineering practices to end up in fairly important open source libraries. In grad school there were quite a few nights spent unwinding a spaghetti pile of operations on nested wrapper functions just to figure out what the actual fuck the underlying math was behind a particular function's implementation was. It's especially bad when the libraries will provide some "factory" abstract class and then give you literally no documentation on what needs to go into the particular instantiation to not break everything.

>>16727303
Python is for people who are good enough to be trusted with a language that puts the onus on you to not do dumb shit in exchange for greater power and flexibility. It's not the gun's fault when some dumbass shoots his balls off.

>>16727303
>i think a lot of the problems come from its relative accessibility allowing a lot of really rough software engineering practices to end up in fairly important open source libraries
Yeah that’s what accessibility means: any idiot can use it. And it’s flexible enough to replace matlab, R and other software mostly used by idiots. So counterintuitively, the presence of idiots is actually a very positive sign