![mathematica 11.2 compatibility mathematica 11.2 compatibility](https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-018-05101-y/MediaObjects/41467_2018_5101_Fig1_HTML.png)
- MATHEMATICA 11.2 COMPATIBILITY SOFTWARE
- MATHEMATICA 11.2 COMPATIBILITY CODE
- MATHEMATICA 11.2 COMPATIBILITY FREE
Of all the things to pick as criticisms of Mathematica, I would not choose this issue to highlight. Support for older notebooks and methods to convert them have always existed and even if a notebook cannot be run, it can still be read. The irony is that Mathematica is not much younger than $\TeX$ itself-it has been around nearly as long, and the core syntax and language has essentially remained unchanged. Nothing is certain and all standards eventually evolve. In my opinion, the closed/open debate is irrelevant to the OP's question, and it doesn't sit well with me to fret over whether some kind of document format will be supported $n$ years down the line as some sort of justification for choosing one over another. Many journals these days even have their own templates they want you to use, so they can ensure a consistent look across articles. nb and consider it publication-ready, compared to a. So you could certainly use it to help you produce formulas to embed in your journal article, for example.
![mathematica 11.2 compatibility mathematica 11.2 compatibility](https://agetintopc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Wolfram-Mathematica-11.1.1.0-Direct-Link-Download.jpeg)
But as I said, the two are complementary: Mathematica has a function called TeXForm that takes a StandardForm expression and converts it into $\TeX$ syntax. On the other hand, A Mathematica document can let the user evaluate formulas and manipulate interactive controls in ways that a static document can never allow.
![mathematica 11.2 compatibility mathematica 11.2 compatibility](https://igetintopc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Wolfram-Mathematica-11.1.1.0-Offline-Installer-Download.jpg)
The emphasis of $\LaTeX$ is on controlling the exact placement of objects on a page, not the mathematical meaning of those objects. I am sure you could manage to replicate a lot of mathematical typesetting functions of $\LaTeX$ with Mathematica.
MATHEMATICA 11.2 COMPATIBILITY SOFTWARE
However, using closed-source software is a legitimate risk, and one specific advantage $\LaTeX$ has over Mathematica. I'm not Stallman I'm not suggesting that closed-source is evil and we should do open-source or nothing. Open-source standards might become dormant, but they are never dead, because the source is still available and someone can bring them back to life. I use Word myself on occasion (it's installed at work, and people send me Word files), but I would never invest thousands of hours of my time in developing expertise in software that will very likely be obsolete in my lifetime. You use closed-source software at your own risk. Before Word Perfect there was Word Star, that was great and had huge market share. Before Word there was Word Perfect, that was great and had huge market share. Microsoft Word is great and has huge market share. Response added to the discussion that appeared suddenly below: Mathematica only has the Mathematica staff.
MATHEMATICA 11.2 COMPATIBILITY CODE
Thousands of user-written packages to do specific things that the base code doesn't. $\LaTeX$ has a huge community of people contributing code to the standard. And suddenly the files you have become useless, because they're stored in a proprietary format that nobody can read. Suppose that five years from now the company decides to put out a new version and break backwards-compatibility. Right now you like Mathematica and are happy with its software. There are enormous advantages to using open source standards.
MATHEMATICA 11.2 COMPATIBILITY FREE
$\LaTeX$ is not only free like in beer, but free like in speech.