🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9610001@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, wayne@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Wayne
Covington) writes:

>digennar@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov (Frank S. DiGennaro) asked for opinions
>on MathCad.  So in a further effort to provoke a response from any MathCad
>users out there ...
>
>The advertisement with the $79 offer tells a person very little about what
>it can and cannot do.  So I visited some computer bookstores yesterday in
>hopes of learning more, but none of them had any books on MathCad.  Nor do I
>recall many MathCad postings in this group, even after Frank posted his
>inquiry.  If they are on version 3.1, it must have been around long enough
>to acquire a following.  Perhaps MathCad is shunned because its capabilities
>fall short of those of Maple, Mathematica, and other commonly mentioned
>computer algebra systems?

MathCAD was originally a NUMERIC computation package rather than a
SYMBOLIC computation package.  Although MathCAD for MS-Windows now
includes parts of Maple, the orientation is still very heavily on
NUMERICS rather than SYMBOLICS.  That is probably why you don't see it
mentioned often in sci.math.symbolic.  Try sci.math.num-analysis --
you might have better luck there.

Fred Chapman
-- 

o ------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
|  Frederick W. Chapman, User Services, Computing Center, Lehigh University |
|    Campus Phone:  8-3218     Preferred E-mail Address:  fc03@Lehigh.Edu   | 
o ------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
|             Ecstasy is transitory, but a theorem is forever!              |
o ------------------------------------------------------------------------- o