The help of Free SMTP Server states:

Be aware that that some ISPs close the SMTP port #25 forcing you to use only their SMTP server. You must be sure the port #25 is available for your ISP before using the program.

And see also How to check whether SMTP port 25 is blocked?

The help of Free SMTP Server states:

Be aware that that some ISPs close the SMTP port #25 forcing you to use only their SMTP server. You must be sure the port #25 is available for your ISP before using the program.

And see also How to check whether SMTP port 25 is blocked?

@omega09 

The material in this comparison was mostly provided by a single author (check its history), but I do not see or know anything about his expertise in both systems. Also, references are not shown in support of the presented arguments. But the good news is that this is a wiki, so that anybody could collaborate by improving this article.

Axel, I think that the best workaround to watch comment activity is this feed page.

@Christopher2222 

The argument about "Mathematica's functional programming language", and "Maple's programming language procedural -- like C or Fortran or Basic -- although it has a few functional programming constructs" is a quite old one. I have heard it repeatedly in the 90's as Maplesoft ambassador in Argentina. And the basis for this argument in the page Functional vs. Procedural Programming Language:

Overall, Maple is a procedural language. It has only a few of the basic functional programming constructs that characterize a functional language and its pattern-matching capabilities are very limited. See a Maple programming tutorial:

is an "online" tutorial dated 1994, not available online since 2006 or so.

This page then spikes it with a Mathematica marketing blurb quote:

Mathematica's functional programming constructs, and allow you to do many things in one line that would normally take several loops in other languages. Remember, ``if you aren't programming functionally, you're programming dysfunctionally''! When you add and into the mix, you can do some pretty powerful things in a couple of lines...

However, this article omits saying that Maple has these functional programming constructs as well (see also Carl Devore's post at the end of this review). Actually, I have never seen a detailed comparative review Mathematica vs Maple in this area. May be that very few persons have enough expertise with both programming languages. And I find that Maplesoft marketing has not been active enough on this point.

What is true, is the weakness of Maple in the area of pattern matching and rule-based programming, see e.g. this subthread.

It seems that rule-based integration is a controversial issue among the experts. See e.g. Jacques' post here. It would be interesting to know the opinion of the current Maple developers. For the test cases shown in the Rubi site, this rule-based approach is working better than Maple.

For a base point in polar coordinates, and vector components in cartesian basis, I would use RootedVector:

with(VectorCalculus):
v:= RootedVector(root=Vector([1,Pi/4],coords=polar),[1,0],cartesian):

Then it can be ploted like:

PlotVector(v);

Or, in a frame with better proportions with something like:

p:=PlotVector(v):q:=plot(0,x=-2..2,-2..2):
plots:-display([p,q],scaling=constrained);

Note that its base point is automatically converted to cartesian coordinates:

convert(GetRootPoint(v),list);
                               1/2   1/2
                              2     2
                             [----, ----]
                               2     2

@Joe Riel 

Inconsistencies are systematic, both among builtin and library routines. Just see, for a single example, spherical coordinates, where I think that most, if not all, of the stuff is library code.

Yes, breaking and repairing is necessary in my opinion. And the sooner is the better. The alternative of continuous building in disordered way, on weak outdated foundations, is even worst.

@Joe Riel 

Inconsistencies are systematic, both among builtin and library routines. Just see, for a single example, spherical coordinates, where I think that most, if not all, of the stuff is library code.

Yes, breaking and repairing is necessary in my opinion. And the sooner is the better. The alternative of continuous building in disordered way, on weak outdated foundations, is even worst.

@Christopher2222 

I do not like those summaries, by default, either. But I find that Primes 2 brought in so many new problems that should be addressed, that adding more complains to the queue may not have any significant impact.

@Joe Riel 

I think that Christopher2222's complain is about the lack of standard in the design of Maple commands. In your terms, it could be phrased as why some command names for identical or very similar purposes are verbs, other command names are substantives, etc.

I agree basically with Christopher2222's conjecture about the reason of this differences, though I tend to blame more the lack of central planning. And I think that the lack of consistency of the Maple system is a serious trouble for the user, for which point and click is not the answer.

As many users, I have been protesting for years, here and elsewhere, about these and many other inconsistences, but I have not seen any positive reaction. So, my conclusion is that the management of Maplesoft, either does not understand the relevance of this issue, does not care, or thinks that cannot solve it.

@Joe Riel 

I think that Christopher2222's complain is about the lack of standard in the design of Maple commands. In your terms, it could be phrased as why some command names for identical or very similar purposes are verbs, other command names are substantives, etc.

I agree basically with Christopher2222's conjecture about the reason of this differences, though I tend to blame more the lack of central planning. And I think that the lack of consistency of the Maple system is a serious trouble for the user, for which point and click is not the answer.

As many users, I have been protesting for years, here and elsewhere, about these and many other inconsistences, but I have not seen any positive reaction. So, my conclusion is that the management of Maplesoft, either does not understand the relevance of this issue, does not care, or thinks that cannot solve it.

I do not see any difference, by executing these commands in a fresh session either in the same or separated lines, in Maple 12.02, 13.02 or 14 Standard GUI under Win XP SP2 32 bit. The values that I observe are 0.49M, 1.06M and 0.87M respectively. Actually, the same as before the execution. May be that you did something else?

@Christopher2222 

This is kind of FAQ. There are many threads on this subject, e.g.:

Filling-In-A-Table

Viewing-Function-As-A-Table

Table-From-Procedure

@Christopher2222 

This is kind of FAQ. There are many threads on this subject, e.g.:

Filling-In-A-Table

Viewing-Function-As-A-Table

Table-From-Procedure