Is MuPAD Light no longer available?
hjbo...@mat.puc-rio.br
It seems SCIFACE has stopped
MuPAD Light. I've looked at www.mupad.de
and www.sciface.com and there are no links
to "MuPAD Light" anymore.
Humberto.
Peter Wolff
Also, the prices for the pay-versions have gone up lately.
Remains Maxima that gets better and better (now version 5.9.2 for windows,
uses Gnuplot for plotting).
PW
<hjbo...@mat.puc-rio.br> skrev i meddelandet
news:1130664988....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Christopher Creutzig
> It seems SCIFACE has stopped
> MuPAD Light. I've looked at www.mupad.de
Unfortunately, that is true. If you would like to see the personal
reasoning of Benno Fuchssteiner leading to this step (which he would
have preferred not to have taken, afaics), you may find some information
at http://fuchssteiner.info/.
regards,
Christopher Creutzig
Jerzy Karczmarczuk
I read the text of B. Fuchssteiner with a deep regret. I wonder whether
the world-wide CAS community could do something about that. There have
been examples of transfer of such projects, (e.g., GAP).
For the moment, we might encourage some schools/high.ed. establishments
to buy MuPAD, but the financial situation is not so rose anywhere...
Maxima is a very nice system, but it won't replace the *structured approach
to math objects* of MuPAD.
Jerzy Karczmarczuk
Martin Rubey
> Maxima is a very nice system, but it won't replace the *structured approach
> to math objects* of MuPAD.
Although this is true, you might consider Axiom (which is free software).
http://wiki.axiom-developer.org/FrontPage
Still, I feel very sorry for MuPAD. Also, and especially for its developers. I
was especially shocked by the line
> The AutoMATH Institute at Paderborn University will be closed (either at
> December 31 this year or July 31 next year), all MuPAD developers at
> Paderborn University will loose their job by December 31 this year (and being
> jobless in nowadays Germany is a desperate fate), the remaining personnel of
> my chair in Mathematics will loose their jobs by July 31 next year.
from http://fuchssteiner.info/
I hope that this won't hit you, Christopher. Are you employed also by SciFace?
Martin
Christopher Creutzig
>>The AutoMATH Institute at Paderborn University will be closed (either at
>>December 31 this year or July 31 next year), all MuPAD developers at
>>Paderborn University will loose their job by December 31 this year (and being
>>jobless in nowadays Germany is a desperate fate), the remaining personnel of
>>my chair in Mathematics will loose their jobs by July 31 next year.
>
>
> from http://fuchssteiner.info/
>
> I hope that this won't hit you, Christopher. Are you employed also by SciFace?
No, I'm employed by the university (technically, the state of
Northrhine-Westfalia), but am one of the four (including Prof.
Fuchssteiner and Prof. Oevel) who will remain so until end of July. (I
was a bit surprised to read I'm apparently not a MuPAD developer, but
regarded that as an unimportant detail.) So it will hit me, but I have
some more time to find a nice place to spend my days after that. :)
regards,
Christopher
Brad Cooper
"Christopher Creutzig" <chris...@creutzig.de> wrote in message
news:436cae98$0$7422$9b4e...@newsread4.arcor-online.net...
I am very much saddened to learn that MuPAD will cease to advance and the
team of programmers/mathematicians there with such great depth of
inellectual talent will be broken up. I use MuPAD most days and have come to
appreciate its wonderful design.
I know we all see waste of money by governments and institutions. This
software is marvellous and to not spend the peanuts required (in relative
terms) from university budgets on a project as important as MuPAD is very
short-sighted.
Anyway, to you Christopher and the other people there who have helped me
with my questions, I want to say thank you for being so responsive and
understanding. Lastly, I compliment you all on your skills and fine
interface design. All the best.
Cheers,
Brad
>
>
> regards,
> Christopher
Alasdair
happened. But I'm not quite sure about the future of MuPAD. Will it
still exist, and continue to be actively developed by SciFace, or is it
basically finished as a viable project?
-Alasdair
Christof Ecker
the right way. There are probably many people like me who are using mupad
just because of the free licenses.
I did used it very seldomly, a couple of times during last year, therefore
spending so much money for it is out of question for me. I would like to
own a tool which is so powerful, so I would buy it for 20 euro, probably
also for 70, even with limited functionality. But 310 euro is definitly not
worth for me.
I guess this is similar for most mupad users. We are not all mathematicians
and working every day with mupad. So probably the popularity of mupad will
sink in the future.
Christof Ecker
Jerzy Karczmarczuk
> In my oppinion following the commercial route of mathematica or maple is not
> the right way. There are probably many people like me who are using mupad
> just because of the free licenses.
>
> I did used it very seldomly, a couple of times during last year, therefore
> spending so much money for it is out of question for me. I would like to
> own a tool which is so powerful, so I would buy it for 20 euro, probably
> also for 70, even with limited functionality. But 310 euro is definitly not
> worth for me.
UniPaderborn + SciFace spent a lot of effort to make MuPAD attractive for
schools. Decently wrapped, documented, distributed, with pedagogical activities
aside.
It is a possible way out, to concentrate on collective users. The point is that
nowadays schools are not so rich either...
Moreover, as I wrote already some time ago, here and there, there was a tendency
to abuse CAS in schools, and to treat them as first programming languages, which
is a bit dangerous, since pupils lose the distinction between a *variable* in
a program, and a mathematical concept, a symbolic indeterminate... Now people
know it, they realize that other languages need to be taught, and this
diminishes the impact of CAS in schools.
Unless I am plainly wrong in extrapolating things I see around me...
Jerzy Karczmarczuk
Christopher Creutzig
> I have read Prof Fuchssteiner's remarks, and I'm sad that this has
> happened. But I'm not quite sure about the future of MuPAD. Will it
Neither am I, to be honest.
> still exist, and continue to be actively developed by SciFace, or is it
> basically finished as a viable project?
While I hate being that capitalist: That depends on the users buying
MuPAD and/or getting their institutions to do so. I'm certain of the
following: If SciFace is able to support developers, MuPAD will be
continued. (I do really not know the current prosperity of SciFace as a
commercial enterprise in sufficient detail to make any prognosis, but it
should be obvious that they need a continuous revenue stream to do so.)
So, if you feel MuPAD should survive, please check whether your
institute or university or whatever could use (and afford) a site
license, if you don't have one yet. (Don't worry, I'm not going to spam
the newsgroup, this will be a one-time note based on the question above.)
regards,
Christopher
Christopher Creutzig
> In my oppinion following the commercial route of mathematica or maple is not
> the right way. There are probably many people like me who are using mupad
> just because of the free licenses.
Do you have an alternative to offer? Please don't forget we have to
buy food. (There are free alternatives, feel free to go there.)
regards,
Christopher
Andrey Grozin
> In my oppinion following the commercial route of mathematica or maple is not
> the right way. There are probably many people like me who are using mupad
> just because of the free licenses.
>
> I did used it very seldomly, a couple of times during last year, therefore
> spending so much money for it is out of question for me. I would like to
> own a tool which is so powerful, so I would buy it for 20 euro, probably
> also for 70, even with limited functionality. But 310 euro is definitly not
> worth for me.
>
> I guess this is similar for most mupad users. We are not all mathematicians
> and working every day with mupad. So probably the popularity of mupad will
> sink in the future.
All the experience shows: don't use any commercial CASs, they can disappear at
any moment. Where is Macsyma? Where is the commercial Axiom? About 300 man-years
(of highest qualification developers) were spent for Axiom development. All this
has nearly disappeared. Thanks God, Tim Daly has managed to convince NAG to open
the code. Axiom is 30 years old; Tim and other developers do everything they can
to ensure that it will be with us after another 30 years.
So, it is *much* better to rely on an active free software project. It will not
go bankrupt, be bought, lose the interest in this market segment... (unlike a
commercial firm).
Why not try Axiom?
* It costs 0$
* It is at least as powerful as MuPAD
* You can contribute to its development
* It will not disappear into thin air
Andrey
Alasdair
Axiom looks to be powerful (I've only played around with it very
briefly), but has not the nice interface of the other packages
mentioned. Also, it lacks support for discrete maths, and (an
important point for me!) doesn't look as if it would be suitable for
teaching.
As for commercial CAS's going under, I think that really depends on the
market, as does any commercial product. Maple and Mathematica keep
steaming along, and as Christopher pointed out above, if enough schools
and colleges buy MuPAD, it will keep going as well. I do hope that
MuPAD keeps going, because I think it's a splendid system, and its
implementation of Domains is top notch. I'm seriously thinking of
moving my department from Maple to MuPAD, if I can be sure that I'm not
investing in a system which is about to cease active development!
-Alasdair
Martin Rubey
> Well, Andrey, DOE-Macsyma exists as Maxima, and seems pretty nice.
> Axiom looks to be powerful (I've only played around with it very
> briefly), but has not the nice interface of the other packages
> mentioned.
under MS Windows this is certainly true. However, together with TeXMacs it
seems really good. I suppose you know HyperDoc?
> Also, it lacks support for discrete maths,
Could you please specify what support for discrete maths you need! It would be
very important for us! You mentioned graphs before. What exactly should the
system be capable of doing with graphs?
> and (an important point for me!) doesn't look as if it would be suitable for
> teaching.
This might indeed be the case. On the other hand, I used it a little for
demonstrating things in a Calculus class, which worked fine.
Martin
Andrey Grozin
> Well, Andrey, DOE-Macsyma exists as Maxima, and seems pretty nice.
But all improvements made by Macsyma Inc. have been lost.
> Axiom looks to be powerful (I've only played around with it very
> briefly), but has not the nice interface of the other packages
> mentioned.
Why? The TeXmacs interface is quite nice, I think. The help browser is
top-quality, though somewhat old-fashioned. Graphics is also quite good,
though it does not have 10^6 options like in Mathematica.
> Also, it lacks support for discrete maths, and (an
> important point for me!) doesn't look as if it would be suitable for
> teaching.
Support for any specific field can be added by those who know this field.
> As for commercial CAS's going under, I think that really depends on the
> market, as does any commercial product. Maple and Mathematica keep
> steaming along, and as Christopher pointed out above, if enough schools
> and colleges buy MuPAD, it will keep going as well. I do hope that
> MuPAD keeps going, because I think it's a splendid system, and its
> implementation of Domains is top notch.
This was largely borrowed from Axiom.
I think that the implementation of domains and categories in Axiom
is excellent, better than in any other system.
> I'm seriously thinking of
> moving my department from Maple to MuPAD, if I can be sure that I'm not
> investing in a system which is about to cease active development!
With commercial software, you cannot be sure about this.
Andrey
Jerzy Karczmarczuk
...
> Axiom looks to be powerful (I've only played around with it very
> briefly), but has not the nice interface of the other packages
> mentioned. Also, it lacks support for discrete maths, and (an
> important point for me!) doesn't look as if it would be suitable for
> teaching.
Why not? Our local 'matheux' use Axiom for teaching the symbolic calculus
already some time. It works decently, and has this mathematical structuring
which is missing, say, in Maple. BTW it was Axiom <- Scratchpad II, which
inspired the math structures in MuPAD (and in Magma).
Discrete math you need, Master? Think about GAP. Or, perhaps Macaulay.
Rewrite some algorithms you need...
Jerzy Karczmarczuk
Axel Vogt
Andrey Grozin wrote:
>
>
> ...
> has nearly disappeared. Thanks God, Tim Daly has managed to convince NAG to open
> the code. Axiom is 30 years old; Tim and other developers do everything they can
> to ensure that it will be with us after another 30 years.
> ...
since when NAG is open, where? i never have seen the source code ...
Axel Vogt
Christof Ecker wrote:
>
> In my oppinion following the commercial route of mathematica or maple is not
> the right way. There are probably many people like me who are using mupad
> just because of the free licenses.
>
> I did used it very seldomly, a couple of times during last year, therefore
> spending so much money for it is out of question for me. I would like to
> own a tool which is so powerful, so I would buy it for 20 euro, probably
> also for 70, even with limited functionality. But 310 euro is definitly not
> worth for me.
>
> I guess this is similar for most mupad users. We are not all mathematicians
> and working every day with mupad. So probably the popularity of mupad will
> sink in the future.
20 EUR ... how nice ... "Geiz ist geil" in its sadest consequence ...
Richard J. Fateman
Andrey Grozin wrote:
>
> So, it is *much* better to rely on an active free software project. It will not
> go bankrupt, be bought, lose the interest in this market segment... (unlike a
> commercial firm).
Your comments are relevant but there are downsides to free software too.
> Why not try Axiom?
> * It costs 0$
Microsoft Windows XP is free to my institution. The cost to
install it is half a day of labor.
Maxima from sourceforge is free. The cost (to me) to download it
and install it is low because it comes in an install.exe.
I think Axiom requires linux. The cost of installing linux,
if you haven't done so already... ?
smust...@yahoo.com
Richard J. Fateman wrote:
> I think Axiom requires linux. The cost of installing linux,
> if you haven't done so already... ?
While Windows is indeed something of a pain, Axiom has a version that
runs on it:
Friedrich Dominicus
>
> 20 EUR ... how nice ... "Geiz ist geil" in its sadest consequence
>...
No the end-point is. "Give it to me, now, and for free". Don't even
dare to ask getting paid for it....
Have a nice day
Friedrich
--
Please remove just-for-news- to reply via e-mail.
Andrey Grozin
> since when NAG is open, where? i never have seen the source code ...
product of NAG. Now it is a free software project, you can get sources
at http://axiom-developer.org/
Andrey
Andrey Grozin
> Microsoft Windows XP is free to my institution. The cost to
> install it is half a day of labor.
>
> Maxima from sourceforge is free. The cost (to me) to download it
> and install it is low because it comes in an install.exe.
>
> I think Axiom requires linux. The cost of installing linux,
> if you haven't done so already... ?
260$. This is by far too expensive for me. Therefore, I use Linux,
which is free. Compiling maxima and axiom from sources is equally
easy for me (except the fact that compiling axiom requires *really*
much cpu time...)
That said, there is a port of axiom to Windows, too. It does not
contain the help browser and the graphics viewer, which require X.
I don't use it (as I said, Windows is too expensive for me).
Andrey
Richard Fateman
> "Richard J. Fateman" <fat...@eecs.berkeley.edu> writes:
>
>>Microsoft Windows XP is free to my institution. The cost to
>>install it is half a day of labor.
>>
>>Maxima from sourceforge is free. The cost (to me) to download it
>>and install it is low because it comes in an install.exe.
>>
>>I think Axiom requires linux. The cost of installing linux,
>>if you haven't done so already... ?
>
> I find this logic extremely starnge. Windows XP Home Edition costs
> 260$.
No, its cost depends on who you are and where. As I said, for
me, WinXP is free because of a site license.
For that matter, since someone in my department seems
to have a site license, Mathematica is free to me.
I suspect that one can buy "cracked" versions of WinXP and
Mathematica on the streets in Hong Kong for very little money.
I can, on principle, reject these programs because
they are not available at zero cost to everyone else, and therefore
I should not use them either. But still, their cost is zero to me.
This is by far too expensive for me. Therefore, I use Linux,
> which is free. Compiling maxima and axiom from sources is equally
> easy for me (except the fact that compiling axiom requires *really*
> much cpu time...)
Many things are free if you do not value your personal time.
>
> That said, there is a port of axiom to Windows, too.
Yes there is! I tried it out. It runs in an MS-DOS command window
by default. So the point -- availability on Windows, free,
easy to install--- this is true, and Axiom is low cost, given an
internet connection to download.
Fabio
>>>install it is half a day of labor.
>>>
>>>Maxima from sourceforge is free. The cost (to me) to download it
>>>and install it is low because it comes in an install.exe.
>>>
>>>I think Axiom requires linux. The cost of installing linux,
>>>if you haven't done so already... ?
>>
>> I find this logic extremely starnge. Windows XP Home Edition costs
>> 260$.
>
> No, its cost depends on who you are and where. As I said, for
> me, WinXP is free because of a site license.
This said, it means that WinXP is not free for you: your institution pays
a site license which are money which are in any case subtracted from the
overall budget, that is you give up to something else in order to use
WinXP.
Even in the case that your site license is "offered" by Microsoft, you
should not use "free" but "free of charge", since you are not free to do
anything you want with that software, but use it.
This may seems an unimportant thing to you, but it can make a big
difference for IT students willing to discover how OSs works and how to
start "playing" with them.
Moreover, if you ask your students to use a particular software which runs
only under winxp for their homeworks (or a software which runs also under
linux but for which you have to pay, like Mathematica), you _force_
your students to buy a license of winxp (or Mathematica, or the like)
This is why MS and other software houses give very low cost, even free
of charge, licenses to educational insitutions...
> For that matter, since someone in my department seems
> to have a site license, Mathematica is free to me.
Even a site license for Mathematica is really not free of charge at all.
You are _really_ giving up something else in order to use it, even if you
don't realize it.
> I suspect that one can buy "cracked" versions of WinXP and
> Mathematica on the streets in Hong Kong for very little money.
We are talking about legal things!
> I can, on principle, reject these programs because
> they are not available at zero cost to everyone else, and therefore
> I should not use them either. But still, their cost is zero to me.
But not to your students...
>> This is by far too expensive for me. Therefore, I use Linux,
>> which is free. Compiling maxima and axiom from sources is equally
>> easy for me (except the fact that compiling axiom requires *really*
>> much cpu time...)
>
> Many things are free if you do not value your personal time.
Well, compiling a program is cpu time, not personal time. From the user
user point of view, it is just a matter of typing
./configure && make && make install
or little more. After this, you just sit down and, if your time is really
valueless, you just look all nice letters running on you monitor, in a
"Matrix" fashion...
Otherway, I can list you a lot of interesting things that can be done
during the compilation of axiom ;-)))
BTW, writing this mail took me MUCH longer than it took me (I mean,
personal time) to compile and install axiom!
>> That said, there is a port of axiom to Windows, too.
>
> Yes there is! I tried it out. It runs in an MS-DOS command window
> by default. So the point -- availability on Windows, free,
> easy to install--- this is true, and Axiom is low cost, given an
> internet connection to download.
So it seems that the only point which prevents you from using axiom is an
internet connection. But you started saying that this is not a problem for
you with maxima (which, in any case, I consider an acceptable choice,
since it is GPL).
Moreover, consider that once you downloaded it you can freely
redistribute it to your students, either the linux or the win version.
Or you could also provide them a dvd with a full os (which needs no
installation) and lots of computational software to be run on any pc
(see quantian:
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com/quantian.html
even if, we must recognize, the software is not in its latest version).
Note that I am not saying that you should not use windows. This is your
choice. But the OS has nothing to do (if we are only talking about CASs)
with the software you use for doing CA.
What I want to stress, is that you must be aware of the implications of
your choices: if you use something you force your students
to pay for some software, if you use other things you can provide the
same knowledge freely (and free of charge).
From this point of view, mupad was a sort of compromise, up to now: not
free from the software point of view, but free of charge at least for
personal/education use.
This was enough to allow me to use it my lectures. Now, I regret that I
must give it up and switch to something else. I will go back to axiom,
which was my first love: I used it for my PhD thesis. At the time, we had
only one licence on a server which could only run 2 sessions. Luckly
enough, we were only 2 persons to use it... ;-)
But when I needed a software to redistribute to students, I had to
switch to something different, since it was commercial (and expensive!).
I have chosen mupad.
Since then axiom became free and it is some time that I was considering
reconverting back to it, but I didn't do it for laziness. Now these news
from mupad make me think that time has come...
Sorry for mupad team :-(((
Fabio
Seeker of Truth
> Moreover, if you ask your students to use a particular software which runs
> only under winxp for their homeworks (or a software which runs also under
> linux but for which you have to pay, like Mathematica), you _force_
> your students to buy a license of winxp (or Mathematica, or the like)
Won't CAS programs for Windows run under Wine?
Fabio
Maybe, you must try: there is not a general rule. In any case, this is not
the point: if the software is closed source, you need a license for it even
for running under wine.
OTOH, if the software is opensource, chances are that its developing runs
under linux... and, even if not, there is (or you can do, since it is
open...) a port for linux.
You should see the question from another point of view, maybe: when you
run an application, you are in fact running (at least) 2 pieces of
software: the (underlying) operating system and the application itself.
For any of these software, you need a license, either closed/open.
Closed may even be free of charge, but rarely this is the case.
Open, (in GPL sense), is free of charge: you pay for support.
This is said in a very short (and somewhat unprecise) way.
It is up to you to choose, for every task, a piece of software which meets
your needs with the kind of license that you prefer.
Fabio
jacob navia
You say:
DO NOT PAY ANYTHING FOR SOFTWARE. SOFTWARE SHOULD BE FREE.
This leads straight to the problem of MUPAD.
They can't survive if everybody thinks like that!
Why should I pay for software???
Linux is free, then linux developers work for free.
Nobody pays anything to them. After a while they get
bored and quit.
WHY should they work without any compensation?
You work for free too?
Then... how do you pay the bills?
jacob
Fabio
It is very different to say "free" and "free of charge".
You can find more information about this on the net than I am able to
explain. See, for example, www.fsf.org
In any case, I never said that commercial software shouldn't exist, nor
that should exist only commercial software. They are two different ways to
produce software and the market will decide who will survive or not and
which model is more succesfull.
For mupad the problem is different. That is: mupad has been,
since now, funded by public money. IMVHO, anything which is funded by
public money MUST be public domain.
If the institution decides, legitimately, to stop funding, the only
reasonable solution should be to look for another public institution
willing to take care of the project.
Behaving like they (seem) to do, very likely they are going to trash all
the human work put in the project in these years.
This is exactly the opposite of what happened with axiom: it was a
commercial product but they decided to not develop it any longer. To not
trash all the human work beside the software, they have given it to the
free software world. The project was close to stop, now it is well alive!
Fabio
Richard Fateman
packages needed for students in courses in my
department are available at no cost to the students,
running on computers provided at no cost to the
students.
If students choose to use computers that they
have purchased, we usually try to make the software
available on such machines. However, it is
not a requirement on the school or the instructor
that it be either free or free of charge.
Neither is it a requirement that instructors provide
free textbooks or free personal computers.
We choose software (or textbooks) based on
educational benefit, and sometimes there is an
educational benefit to using open-source programs.
It is not the only criterion.
..............................
RJF
Bernard Parisse
> educational benefit, and sometimes there is an
> educational benefit to using open-source programs.
> It is not the only criterion.
My personal experience is that teachers choose software based
on their personal knowledge of one or maybe 2 softs and not
after a reasonably objective review of the advantages/drawbacks
of the available softwares. Moreover for too many of them, the cost
of a license for students at home is considered to be 0 because they
don't think it's a problem to have (and even sometimes distribute)
illegal copies.
Textbooks is a different matter, because most of them have learned
from different books on the same topic (that's not the case with
soft for many), and students can borrow books free of charge
for home usage from the library.
Alasdair
we had the choice of Maple or Mathematica, both of which would have
supported all our teaching (discrete, calculus, numeric). However, we
got much better support (answers to our queries) from Maplesoft than
from Wolfram. So we went with Maple.
But we have been unable to provide Maple to our students for use on
their personal computers, because of cost. As far as I know, there are
three CAS's which are suitable for us: Maple, Mathematica, MuPAD.
MuPAD is the cheapest, but it is in a state of flux at the moment,
moving to being fully commercial, and I'm not convinced of the wisdom
of buying into it (although I do like it very much).
The GPL CAS's: Maxima, Axiom, Pari/GP, Yacas etc are not full-featured
enough (poor support for discrete maths), or have interfaces which make
them unsuitable for teaching.
I don't condone the use of illegal software, and I can't - indeed I
musn't - expect my students to rely on it.
So I don't know what will happen - probably we will stick to Maple, at
least in the short term - and offer a student version to those who want
to buy it.
-Alasdair
Jay Belanger
Richard Fateman <fat...@cs.berkeley.edu> writes:
> As far as I know, any software
> packages needed for students in courses in my
> department are available at no cost to the students,
> running on computers provided at no cost to the
> students.
Same here; although students often have to wait a while to get at a
university computer.
> If students choose to use computers that they
> have purchased, we usually try to make the software
> available on such machines.
Same here.
> However, it is not a requirement on the school or the instructor
> that it be either free or free of charge.
Same here.
> Neither is it a requirement that instructors provide
> free textbooks or free personal computers.
Same here.
Although when they buy their own textbooks, they can keep them if they
want. Same with their own computers. Not so with (at least some of)
their software. As soon as they're no longer a student, they don't
have access to the software anymore, unless they care to pay a great
deal of money. The information they get from textbooks they keep, the
ability to use a particular piece of software disappears unless they
shell out some bucks. The university, to some extent, becomes a shill
for the software company.
A reasonable thing to do would be to tell the student they need to
have software that can do X, Y and Z and provide something that does
it. Unfortunately, what is done here is a particular piece of
software is insisted on, and more often than not that learning is
useless as soon as school is over.
Jay
Richard J. Fateman
Jay Belanger wrote:
.....
The university, to some extent, becomes a shill
> for the software company.
Also for the hardware company. e.g. if the software runs only on
one brand of CPU. My class software must run on UNIX /Sun Solaris (the
school's computer) and anything else is extra effort (sometimes
only a little). Typically linux, windows, mac, but not always.
> A reasonable thing to do would be to tell the student they need to
> have software that can do X, Y and Z and provide something that does
> it.
Minor differences of any sort can totally derail students. If
everyone is told "oh, use any C compiler, use any editor or IDE"
it might work. More likely it would not.
Unfortunately, what is done here is a particular piece of
> software is insisted on, and more often than not that learning is
> useless as soon as school is over.
I think that is not specific to software. And you never know
when that useless piece of knowledge becomes useful. Sometimes,
of course, it is useless until the day you die.
RJF