A full professor teaching the history of mathematics at Masters level recently told a friend of mine that there was nothing of interest left to explore in the mathematics written in Latin over the last 1000 years. Given that a significant part of Euler's work has never been translated into a modern language, and that I recall a recent discovery about Gauss's invention of what is now called the fast Fourier transform (FFT), I was very surprised. I think my confusion is caused by my lack of familiarity with the field. So, how do we explain the lack of activity in the study of Latin mathematics?
Since the full professor in question certainly hasn't read all of "the mathematics written in Latin over the last 1000 years," one can assert with certainty that he literally does not know what he is talking about. Half of Leibniz's writing has not even been digitalized, although this project has been going on for exactly 100 years. I don't read Latin but some of my coauthors do, and we recently used decisive evidence found in unpublished Latin texts by Leibniz; see this and also this.
A current controversy related to the Leibnizian calculus was summarized in this article in The Mathematical Intelligencer.
To respond to one of the comments: at least one of the sides in the debate is very well funded. Thus, David Rabouin received a 3 million euro grant to pursue his study and interpretation of Leibniz's Latin texts. He has also taken every opportunity to try to sink my work; luckily, without much success.
Mathematics written in Latin during the last 1000 years is usually not designated as "Latin mathematics". Contrary to what your professor says, most of mathematical papers of Euler have been translated into English:
Papers of Gauss, Jacobi and other great mathematicians who wrote in Latin are not translated but they were intensively studied, and most mathematicians who study them have no difficulty with reading mathematics in Latin.