Is Learning C++/Python for Computational Physics Worth It Over Mathematica?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Learning C++ or Python for computational physics is beneficial for solving complex numerical methods and partial differential equations, but Mathematica remains a powerful alternative for those who prioritize ease of use and versatility. Mathematica is recommended for its comprehensive capabilities, especially when cost is not an issue. For those seeking cost-effective solutions, Python and Octave are viable alternatives, with Python offering both computer algebra and numerical capabilities. The book "Computational Methods for Physics" by Joel Franklin is a valuable resource for Mathematica users.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of partial differential equations
  • Familiarity with numerical methods
  • Basic knowledge of programming in C++ or Python
  • Awareness of computational software like Mathematica and Maple
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore advanced features of Mathematica for computational physics
  • Learn Python libraries such as NumPy and SciPy for numerical analysis
  • Investigate Octave as a free alternative to MATLAB for numerical computations
  • Read "Computational Methods for Physics" by Joel Franklin for practical applications
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for amateur physicists, students in computational physics, and professionals seeking to enhance their computational skills using software like Mathematica, Python, or Octave.

zoltrix
Messages
85
Reaction score
7
hello

I am interested in computational physics at an amateur level
is it worth while learning complex numerical methods with C++ /Python to solve partial differential equations as well as for other physical applications while a software such as mathematica can do the job for you ?
 
Technology news on Phys.org
IMO, if there is a well-established, specialized language targeted at your application, it is easier to use. If cost is not a problem, use Mathematica.
 
FactChecker said:
If cost is not a problem, use Mathematica.
I second this. Mathematica is very versatile and you will be able to get much more out of it.

If you chose to go with Mathematica, I recommend the book Computational Methods for Physics by Joel Franklin.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: aaroman, vanhees71 and FactChecker
I got Mathematica in 1995 and I continue to use it today for exploring physics.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DrClaude, vanhees71 and FactChecker
A less expensive alternative is Python. As Mathematica it provides both computer algebra and numerics.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: aaroman and Dale
Octave is fun too, it is basically a free version of Matlab
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: aaroman, CalcNerd, FactChecker and 1 other person
For a very pragmatic reason, I use Maple. My employer has a site license, so I get for free the full version on my office desktop, and on my laptop. I have made extensive use of this both professionally and recreationally.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 102 ·
4
Replies
102
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K