it's very hard to argue anything is "better" than Wolfram/Mathematica when it comes to symbolic stuff, after all, most theoretical physicists use Mathematica for their professional work.
But for (entry-level) learning and possibly pivoting to application, Julia is delightful to use and can transit into some symbolics and numerical. Besides, it's free and open source.
Unless you're working on undergraduate integrals then it's pretty useless for advanced stuff without writing your own library. By that point you may as well write it in a language that's more performant and cheaper.
> Unless you're working on undergraduate integrals then it's pretty useless for advanced stuff without writing your own library. By that point you may as well write it in a language that's more performant and cheaper.
Hard disagree. Mathematica's symbolic dexterity makes abstract reasoning (with equations/expressions) very easy. Think of it as the companion tool for anyone doing pages of algebra that would go into a paper, or form the backend for some code.
The numerical capabilities of Mathematica are passable but nothing fancy. Once you have the math figured out, you might even want to reimplement "in a language that's more performant and cheaper." But I haven't see anything come close to Mathematica for convenience of symbolic reasoning -- not just as a technology (lisp is pretty good) but as a ready-for-use product.
I agree that only some physicists use Mathematica. But I haven't really seen it being used it for calculus. Maybe some differential equations.
But mostly for symbolic algebriac manipulation. I used it during my phd to work with groups. Instead of having to calculate stuff by hand, you can just ask Mathematica to do it. Also lots of stuff with tensors in GR is so easy to do in Mathematica.
I think it's fair to say that most math/physics people use mathematica from time to time, but largely for different things than they use other programming languages for. It's very good as a CAS, but it's a pretty bad programming language for things that don't have analytical solutions.
It isn't. Mathematica is very much a niche product in academia.
The people who would get most out of it are students, but for some god forsaken reason universities don't support them.
I was in a pilot class with Mathematica back in 2006 and the review of the class were _all_ 5 stars and students on average got 10% higher marks in all other subjects they took that year.
They didn't run the course again.
Sagemath is now equally good if a teacher defines a DSL for the students to use in a class.
The only "problem" with sagemath is that it is based on Python. The rationale is that Python is easy to start using and widely known. This is the usual "make it easy for newcomers" trap.
For the mathematical constructs we care about in symbolic programming, I have found Python's syntax and Sage's menagerie of objects awful to use. Initially you feel comfortable, but when you want to do some real work, it gets horribly in the way. The Wolfram language, a LISP variant, is less familiar and harder for a newbie to learn but it is vastly superior for actual work.
The only "problem" with sagemath is that it is based on Python. The rationale is that Python is easy to start using and widely known. This is the usual "make it easy for newcomers" trap.
For the mathematical constructs we care about in symbolic programming, I have found Python's syntax and Sage's menagerie of objects awful to use. Initially you feel comfortable, but when you want to do some real work, it gets horribly in the way. The Wolfram language, not a LISP variant, is less familiar and harder for a newbie to learn but it is vastly superior for actual work.
But for (entry-level) learning and possibly pivoting to application, Julia is delightful to use and can transit into some symbolics and numerical. Besides, it's free and open source.