4
$\begingroup$

I would be grateful for a comparison between the capabilities of Cinderella and Geogebra, for teaching at all levels, but especially at the college/university-level. I became a reasonably adept user of Cinderella, but have only dabbled in GeoGebra.

Here is my naive, nonexpert sense of where matters might stand:

Cinderella is more mathematically sophisticated, but now less actively supported, and with a smaller user base than GeoGebra. So it might be wise, pragmatically, to "switch" to GeoGebra.

To support my sense that "Cinderella is more mathematically sophisticated":

The Cinderella Manual:

"Cinderella's mathematical kernel is implemented entirely over the complex numbers"

GeoGebra manual:

"GeoGebra does not support complex numbers directly"

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I cannot compare any of these things, including the thing I'm about to introduce: Mathematica 12 can now handle axiomatic geometry in that you can enter hypotheses, it will solve the constraints to construct a geometric "scene" satisfying the hypotheses, and it can search for conjectures about what follows from the hypotheses. User-input syntax is also more "sophisticated," that is, difficult for students to pick up easily. $\endgroup$
    – user1815
    Commented Nov 28, 2019 at 16:08
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @user1527: Licenses for Mathematica are expensive and most institutions, particularly outside the US, do not have access to such tools. $\endgroup$
    – Dan Fox
    Commented Dec 21, 2019 at 8:35

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3
$\begingroup$

As you say - GeoGebra is still actively developed. For example we've just added support for complex functions

http://wiki.geogebra.org/en/Reference:Changelog_6.0

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I think it would be better if you explicitly disclosed in your answer that you are the lead developer of GeoGebra. $\endgroup$
    – JRN
    Commented Sep 28, 2020 at 13:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree with @JoelReyesNoche about mentioning your affiliation. Moreover, I think it would be helpful to add some more explanation. What will we find in that link? How does it address the main questions in the original post? (As it is now, this feels more like a comment than an answer.) $\endgroup$
    – Brendan W. Sullivan
    Commented Sep 28, 2020 at 14:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.