Rank: Administration Groups: Registered, Advanced Member Joined: 23/06/2009(UTC) Posts: 1,740 Was thanked: 318 time(s) in 268 post(s)

Hello uni, Thank you for the reply, but I think I did not make myself clear. I'll try to be more specific. I just think that SMath needs to be more powerful. It needs few more solvers (algebraic, ODE etc.) and some other things. For instance, I am very grateful to you that you made the Mathcad like ODE solvers. I hope they will be a standard SMath plugin. Smath needs some more numerical functions  you already did some from Mathcad as well. It needs some more symbolic features  you try to do the same as well. The question is  how to make SMath a bit more powerful in a relatively acceptable period of time in the future? SMath made quite a progress in past few years and I am really convinced that SMath needs only few more things in order to be used by many more users on a daily basis. As I could see there are two things to be done. Firstly, Andrey to continue developing the SMath core as he is doing, but he can not do all these things in SMath  this is impossible. Secondly, good willing people (like you) to make plugins. Now, I did not quite understand how to make those plugins. I do not understand what could be reused in SMath from other available sources and just make "packages"plugins for SMath and, moreover, what could be useful for SMath and its users. uni wrote:Radovan, I think that there is a possibility to connect any mathematical package (like Maple, Matlab, Mathematica...), but they should be installed in system. If you have Matlab (for example, with size of 110 Gb ), why you need SMath Studio in this case? No, not at all. I am not using either of these programs and there is no need to make any plugin to connect with them  just my opinion. uni wrote:It is possible to be connected to free packages (AlgLib, ...), but only without fanaticism. Otherwise SMath Studio will lose the status of the mathematical program, and will be only the interface with plugins to mathematical engines. That's why I am careful in this question. Sorry, I did not understand this at all. Could you please explain that to me. Let us imagine the present state of SMath as it now but with few hundred numerical functions more in the function list, with more symbolic possibilities and features. I think that the average user would not care where those things come from while he/she is able to do the all the math calculations in SMath (without installing some additional commercial packages, of course). At the present state, some more advanced user will say:"Hmm...I like SMath but unfortunately I can not do this or that in it and I am forced to use some other math tool". I could not see how SMath could lose the status of a mathematical program by incorporating in it some freely available numerical or symbolical libraries. SMath can not compete with, say, Matlab because there are thousands of programmers involved in its development and it is not the point to compare Matlab and SMath. However, as far as I know even than Matlab used and incorporated in it lots of freely available numerical libraries. The same thing is with, say, Scilab (free Matlab like software). There are lots of incorporated freely available libraries as well. I might be wrong about all of this, of course, but can not see what could be wrong in making plugins from some freely available, well established C, C++, C# numerical library (or even Fortran), if this could be possible. On the other hand, I would not really care if some other (free) symbolic engine is present in SMath as a plugin  contrary I would like that (BTW, I prefer, say, Jasymca over Maple). Actually, I would be very grateful if someone is willing and could do all of this. Regards, Radovan Edited by user 19 September 2011 22:01:17(UTC)
 Reason: Not specified 
When Sisyphus climbed to the top of a hill, they said: "Wrong boulder!" 
1 user thanked omorr for this useful post.

