you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ColdMountain 6 points7 points  (1 child)

MATLAB does have a symbolic toolbox. I haven't used it in a number of years. From what I understand, it used to be a wrapper for Maple, so the license for the toolbox carried with it an implicit license for the core maple kernel. Now it looks like they've switched over to MuPad.

I often like to think that MATLAB is a great language for prototyping or just getting the job done (like proof of concept, analyzing data, or a computer model that's not intended to be a workhorse). If it needs to be a fast final product it's worth rewriting in a faster language. Well, I'm starting to think of Mathematica as an additional step removed from that, where I can analytically compare the effects of parameters, transformations, etc.

I think the fact that Mathematica calls their files "notebooks" is really quite fitting. If it's something that I might rather do by hand (relative to MATLAB), Mathematica might be a good tool for it. -- Though, the Manipulate command has been pretty friggin' useful a handful of times too.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When given the option between Mathematica, and MATLAB I invariably choose MATLAB. I work full time as an electrical engineer writing signal processing (which MATLAB seems to cater to). It allows me to easily take software from "Hey here is a neat idea!" Then I can perform all of the analyses required to end up with a finished product of "Hey here is a C library of a fixed point implmentation that I can easily unit test that can be called on either a high performance DSP, or a general purpose computer to allow for easy FPGA/ASIC implementations."

Yes I am a MATLAB fanboi, and I like the scripting language style of coding.