Does anyone has some experience about working with Cadabra and it's (dis)advantage in comparison to other Symbolic Computer Algebra software such as Maple and Mathematica (physics package) in the field theory/gravity problems?

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Since "Cadabra is a computer algebra system (CAS) designed specifically for the solution of problems encountered in field theory", it seems this is a perfectly legitimate question and is on-topic for the site according to the recent discussion. +1. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Mar 23 '14 at 17:10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I would look to Should we allow software questions? (take 3) and earlier incarnation for deciding the topicality of this as this is a question about a third-party tool not a question about a numeric implementation. That said, it seems to be a compare and contrast which is to say opinion-based. $\endgroup$ – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Mar 23 '14 at 17:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The latest Meta discussion (that Emilio links to) states we cannot advise on libraries/languages/compilers/etc. This question appears to be asking advice on a library/language and is thus off-topic. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Mar 23 '14 at 18:03
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Qmechanic, thanks for your consideration. I accept you decision. But I would like to ask you where can I find an expert-based analysis about my question? In my first comment I mentioned a paper that compare these software. But unfortunately his paper has been published on 2009 and after that time these software have been changed a lot. In fact, I am looking for something like this paper but more update. $\endgroup$ – Vahid Mar 24 '14 at 23:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I just have found the below article that answer partly to my question. In fact, I am looking for this type of analysis that I think that fit on Phys.SE. :) inspirehep.net/record/1282594 $\endgroup$ – Vahid Mar 25 '14 at 0:17