The December 2022 issue of IEEE Spectrum is here!

Close bar

Originating in the 1970s as a symbolic math program, Maple has evolved into a high-end math package that, its vendors claim--probably correctly--is used in virtually every major university and research center in the world. This latest update from Waterloo Maple Inc., in Waterloo, Ont., Canada, adds still more to an already large package.

The most obvious addition is a sparkling new graphical user interface, which replaces the previous plain command-line interface. Numerous on-screen palettes allow users to insert symbols such as integral signs or Greek characters into worksheets with a mouse click. A new equation editor and other enhancements also lets them create worksheets with nicely formatted, textbook-style layouts rather than the clunky documents produced by older releases of Maple. What's more, the layouts can be recalculated with a simple command.

These enhancements move Maple in the direction of technical publishing--an approach taken to much greater lengths by Mathematica, developed by Wolfram Research Inc., Champaign, Ill., Maple's closest competitor.

Some of Maple's enhancements will appeal to novice users. People tired of hunting for the correct key combination or menu entries for mathematical symbols can draw the symbol using the mouse, and Maple will recognize it. New templates let them complete more than 200 different tasks by filling in the blanks. The help system has been improved, and there are new Task Assistants for importing and exporting data, among other features.

Maple is smarter, too. Important changes include beefed-up routines for the symbolic solution of differential equations and statistics. Efficiencies have been added for memory management and numerical routines. And there appear to be only minor incompatibilities with other recent releases of Maple; my worksheets for Maple 6 through 8 ran without a problem. Those accustomed to the older command-line interface can choose to work wih the "classic worksheet" option.

But the enhancements are expensive in terms of computing resources. Maple 10 with the new interface takes more RAM space to load and runs noticeably slower than it does with the "classic worksheet" interface. It required 60 megabytes compared with 4 MB on my system. Experienced users, who simply want to solve math problems, might prefer the command-line interface.

Most users with maintenance contracts undoubtedly will have already received their updates. For many others, the new features might not be sufficiently compelling to warrant a pricey upgrade. But this latest version is a significant improvement to an already stellar product.

About the Author

KENNETH R. FOSTER (IEEE Fellow) is a professor in the department of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania ( ).

Keep Reading ↓Show less

This article is for IEEE members only. Join IEEE to access our full archive.

Join the world’s largest professional organization devoted to engineering and applied sciences and get access to all of Spectrum’s articles, podcasts, and special reports. Learn more →

If you're already an IEEE member, please sign in to continue reading.

Membership includes:

  • Get unlimited access to IEEE Spectrum content
  • Follow your favorite topics to create a personalized feed of IEEE Spectrum content
  • Save Spectrum articles to read later
  • Network with other technology professionals
  • Establish a professional profile
  • Create a group to share and collaborate on projects
  • Discover IEEE events and activities
  • Join and participate in discussions

Why Functional Programming Should Be the Future of Software Development

It’s hard to learn, but your code will produce fewer nasty surprises

11 min read
A plate of spaghetti made from code
Shira Inbar

You’d expectthe longest and most costly phase in the lifecycle of a software product to be the initial development of the system, when all those great features are first imagined and then created. In fact, the hardest part comes later, during the maintenance phase. That’s when programmers pay the price for the shortcuts they took during development.

So why did they take shortcuts? Maybe they didn’t realize that they were cutting any corners. Only when their code was deployed and exercised by a lot of users did its hidden flaws come to light. And maybe the developers were rushed. Time-to-market pressures would almost guarantee that their software will contain more bugs than it would otherwise.

Keep Reading ↓Show less