cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

PTC Mathcad Prime Roadmap (2021 update)

VladimirN
23-Emerald II

PTC Mathcad Prime Roadmap (2021 update)

New features for consideration:

 

Pic-1.png

 

 

Pic-2.png

 

 

Pic-3.png

29 REPLIES 29
LucMeekes
23-Emerald I
(To:VladimirN)

Considering that these features are 'considered', I don't expect any of these Prime releases will sufficiently outperform (real) MathCad; so I'll stick with (real) MathCad 11, the one that predates Prime 11 by 20 years, if not more, because I don't expect that Prime 11 gets released before 2023...

 

Luc

I just keep thinking about what would have happened if PTC had spent their effort continuing on mathcad 16 instead of going towards Prime, which was a useless effort ... What a bad decision from some managers at PTC !


@DM_9992412 wrote:

I just keep thinking about what would have happened if PTC had spent their effort continuing on mathcad 16 instead of going towards Prime, which was a useless effort ... What a bad decision from some managers at PTC !


The idea of giving the outdated Mathcad a new, more up-to-date code base was right and necessary. Just how PTC then implemented this idea is a disaster and ultimately killed Mathcad as we knew and loved it. Admittedly - sometimes a love-hate relationship, too, but you often appreciate things most when you've lost them.

RIP Mathcad

 

CornelBejan
15-Moonstone
(To:Werner_E)

Well, what to do then?
We can complain as much as we want, but not much will change 🤔.
The PTC will most likely implement their development plans, it doesn't really matter what our wish is.

The solution is to give up and start with other math software? Or?

Probably some have been using Mathcad for many years...and are related to this software.





We can complain as much as we want, but not much will change 🤔.

Yes, thats sure true!

 

 


The solution is to give up and start with other math software?

Sure, of course! What else?

 

 


Probably some have been using Mathcad for many years...and are related to this software.

Absolutely correct! There is no 1:1 replacement. And finding a new software and get aquainted to it sure will not be an easy task and as I guess will turn into a heavy trial and error task.  Changes are very often painful, but they can also be liberating.

 

CornelBejan
15-Moonstone
(To:Werner_E)

@LucMeekes 
It's hard for me to break up definitively with Mathcad for good ...
Well, what software did you decide to emigrate to?

Didn't migrate to other software. Still using MathCad 11 for day-to-day work. Use Prime (Express), primarily to help others in this forum.

 

Luc

Me neither. Still using MC 14 for most things, but starting to do some stuff with MatLab.

tietjee
14-Alexandrite
(To:VladimirN)

Is there a schedule for the release dates?

VladimirN
23-Emerald II
(To:tietjee)

Not yet.

 

Pic-4.png

VladimirN
23-Emerald II
(To:VladimirN)

Timeline release:

 

Pic.png

So, looking at the timeline of features being considered for Primes 8, 9, 10 & 11,  Prime will achieve functional parity with Mathcad 15 in about 2024/2025.   That's 13/14 years since the release of Prime 1.

 

I'd been hoping that Prime would have built on Mathcad 15, adding many new features, sorting out M15's discrepancies and making some of M15's good ideas more "professional" and better integrated (animation is one example ... that should be programmable from within a worksheet).

 

I hope that PTC's Mathcad team manage to sort out a few of the annoying features in Prime.  Examples are restoring recursion for local functions (that's a biggie!! I'd like mutual recursion as well, please), restoring partial application (I sorely miss that) and sorting out the discrepancy between the symbolic and numeric processors whereby the symbolic processor won't handle "for x ∈ array".

 

Stuart

tietjee
14-Alexandrite
(To:VladimirN)

Do you believe their schedule?

DJNewman
13-Aquamarine
(To:tietjee)

Since our official public product calendar doesn't have a date for the next version of Mathcad, there's nothing to believe or disbelieve right now.

tietjee
14-Alexandrite
(To:DJNewman)

PTC has never met a release date yet.  Why should this be any different?

Werner_E
24-Ruby IV
(To:tietjee)


@tietjee wrote:

PTC has never met a release date yet.  Why should this be any different?


You are absolutely right, but I guess what DJNewman meant was, that PTC learned from this and found a clever way to never miss a published release date ever: They simply don't publish release dates for future version any more 😉

 

kfalkenberg
5-Regular Member
(To:VladimirN)

Ok - We got enough.

We went to Maple.  It has it's own diffculties but I don't feel like being taken for a ride by them...
Get lucky with PTC..

Klaus


@kfalkenberg wrote:

Ok - We got enough.

We went to Maple.  It has it's own diffculties but I don't feel like being taken for a ride by them...


Standard Maple or Flow?

 

Stuart

kfalkenberg
5-Regular Member
(To:StuartBruff)

Both, if you buy flow, you get standard too. 
Flow is good for quick scribbles, if you want to go deeper, you need the standard-application. 
The service is good, I asked some stupid questions and got good answers. 

regards,

Klaus

 

 

Yes, I've reached the same conclusion from my brief play with Flow, Klaus.  It reminds me of an early Prime, but has a much more capable engine underneath the hood.

 

However, if Maple devote some resources to Flow, they've got the making of a decent product.   I'm sure PTC are taking note ...

 

Stuart

One man was very sorry for his dog and cut off its tail not once, but gradually, in pieces.
And another person began to gradually sew these pieces back to the dog. The name of this dog is Mathcad Prime.

What we had:

 

shutterstock_658561384-e1574034145993

 

 

What we've got:

 

 

Peanut

"What do you mean you want to do image processing and see live results in a worksheet?  Not over my warm, furry, body you won't!  Local recursion and partial application???  Empty arrays??? Grrrr ..."

 

What we want:

 

german-shorthair-pointer-750x411

 

Multi-Role, Multi-Environment, Adaptable, Intelligent.

 

(Great dogs, BTW)

 

I hope that Road Map successfully leads to a German Shorthaired Pointer of a product (and speeds up getting there).

 

Stuart


@StuartBruff wrote:

 

What we want:

Given from the pic a dog with an even shorter tail!? 😈

 


I hope that Road Map successfully leads to a German Shorthaired Pointer of a product (and speeds up getting there).


I admire your unbroken optimism, but I am already wondering what it is based on.

 


@Werner_E wrote:

@StuartBruff wrote:

 

What we want:

Given from the pic a dog with an even shorter tail!? 😈

Fortunately, tail docking is no longer recommended practice (although, having owned a couple of docked GSPs, I have to say they look odd with tails) ...

 

So, there is still hope that the Prime dog will be able to happily knock ornaments off tables when it wags it tail.  😎

 



I hope that Road Map successfully leads to a German Shorthaired Pointer of a product (and speeds up getting there).


I admire your unbroken optimism, but I am already wondering what it is based on.

 


Based on?  I know it's slight, but if they're putting effort into the symbolic processor, it might mean that they have more mathematically-inclined paying customers, who will have greater expectations of a maths application and, in particular, be more functionally minded.   

 

Who knows we may even see the standard mathematical piecewise(*) braces introduced to avoid cumbersome looking, vertical-space consuming, awkward-to-interpret if statements and "functions"?

 

Stuart

 

Note:

 

(*) I've previously defined my own piecewise function in Mathcad, but it lacked inherent support for such things as short-circuiting unnecessary evaluation and allowing an arbitrary number of arguments in a user-defined function.   

 

There's even been a recent request for help implementing one: 

https://community.ptc.com/t5/PTC-Mathcad/Programming-Newbie-need-some-help/m-p/741298#M196764

 

It's not like some of Prime's competitors don't have it ...

 

https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/Piecewise.html

https://www.maplesoft.com/support/help/maple/view.aspx?path=examples/piecewise

 

https://uk.mathworks.com/help/symbolic/piecewise.html

https://docs.sympy.org/latest/modules/functions/elementary.html?highlight=piecewise#sympy.functions....

https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/reference/functions/sage/functions/piecewise.html

I only asked because, in my opinion, the "development" of Prime over the past dozen years has left little hope of future improvement and there are no indications that PTC will continue to develop the program more seriously in the future.

kfalkenberg
5-Regular Member
(To:Werner_E)

Why should they ? As long as the subscription fees come in, there is no need to do something...
So there is only one way to push them. For us it was time to change. ( with some 20 licences )

 

 


@kfalkenberg wrote:

Why should they ? As long as the subscription fees come in, there is no need to do something...
So there is only one way to push them. For us it was time to change. ( with some 20 licences )


Perhaps they ought to be looking at a few things (and I'm sure they have - it's just that I might not like/agree with their conclusions😞

 

  1. Why are people turning away from Mathcad Prime?
  2. Why aren't people *wanting* to keep up with subscriptions, instead of being content to keep to their old permanent licences?
  3. Why aren't new people buying Mathcad Prime instead of its competitors?
  4. What should Mathcad be doing to retain/gain/regain customers for Prime?

For some of these, the answers might not be as negative as I think they are - I have no actual figures to support some of my underlying assumptions, I'm just guessing from the number of questions, videos, blogs, coding sites (*), etc re Mathcad compared to Matlab, Maple & Mathematica, and how quiet the Community is compared to its predecessor, the Mathsoft Collaboratory - plus, of course, the fact that these competitors are still in business, Matlab, in particular, had a very strong footprint in industry when I worked in the aerospace environment.

 

Stuart

 

(*) For example,


@Werner_E wrote:

I only asked because, in my opinion, the "development" of Prime over the past dozen years has left little hope of future improvement and there are no indications that PTC will continue to develop the program more seriously in the future.


I'm not entirely sure that's the case.  There seems to have been a little more indication of Prime being given more importance and greater attempts being made to entice people to the dark side.  For example, they have upped support and development of the symbolic processor with their own in-house team, and the roadmap does show many of the M15-parity features users have been asking for.  I've also seen slightly greater web-presence, including on YouTube.  If I were a guessing man, I'd guess that they've resolved most of whatever drivers were keeping the Mathcad team from seriously updating the UI and direct user features.   Either that or somebody up the food chain has finally heard the screams of anguish from down below or taken note of the competition. 

 

However, I am dismayed that the team seem to be going for an updated Mathcad 15 rather than improving it.   I think many have forgotten the constant stream of significant functional improvements many of us were asking for in Mathcads 11..14 (indeed, I was hoping Mathcad 18 would have been a significant player in the maths app world, playing on the same field as Mathematica, Maple and Matlab), and I'm not really seeing any signs those concerns are being taken on board - I have a sneaking suspicion that somebod-y/ies influential doesn't really grasp how far software has progressed since Fortran and C and isn't really au fait with the functional programming style that's been present in Mathcad since its early days.

 

Stuart

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube+mathcad&rlz=1C5CHFA_enGB860GB860&sxsrf=ALeKk03atfnUW9tIiQdgO...


@StuartBruff wrote:

@Werner_E wrote:

@StuartBruff wrote:

 

What we want:

Given from the pic a dog with an even shorter tail!? 😈

Fortunately, tail docking is no longer recommended practice (although, having owned a couple of docked GSPs, I have to say they look odd with tails) ...

 

So, there is still hope that the Prime dog will be able to happily knock ornaments off tables when it wags it tail.  😎

Oh, and (of course), the docked tail was a reference to Valery's Dog (just waiting for the final bit to be added back on!)

 

Stuart

Announcements
Check out the latest
Mathcad Tip
"PTC Mathcad 15 / Prime 1-6 Update."