zlacker

>>nsoonh+(OP)
Maybe with the power of a supercomputer, Mathematica can finally launch in less than 30s. I have no idea how a software that still does essentially the same thing as it did in 1988 can be that sluggish.

>>fsh+y7
Yet there is hardly any computing system that can replicate Mathematica tooling capabilities.

One would expect 37 years would be enough to create such alternative.

Jupiter notebooks aren't the same.

>>pjmlp+R7
Honest question: I think Maple is really a competitor, even if less known.

>>pfortu+s8
Prob I am a very small minority here, but I used Maple a lot in the past and I liked it a lot. More standard syntax than mathematica, and overall much much easier to debug. In particular, as far as I remember, maple allowed for more transparency in the mathematical methods used in some computation than mathematica, as I could just see what it was doing exactly when an unexpected result came or I wanted to understand some method. When you work a lot with integrals, limits and special functions there is always a shit ton of assumptions and cases all over the place, and if something is missed somewhere the computation can just get wrong. There were some few times I would actually get wrong results in mathematica. When the language is more like a black box, it is hard to know what happened.