21–30 of 106 posts
Is it a great innovation that other tools have caught up with, or is it still getting a lot of use at the bleeding edge?
An open question independent of the author: What do people use Mathematica for that can't be done in R, SAS, Matlab, SPSS or Python libraries. Is it a great innovation that other tools have caught up with, or is it still getting a lot of use at the bleeding edge?
If I didn't know better I'd have assumed from all the first person pronouns that Wolfram is the lead developer and coded 90% of the new version's features himself.
He mostly states it himself:
Hundreds of us have been energetically working on building this for the past two years—and in fact I’ve personally put several thousand hours into it.
[1] Read some of the comments from Glassdoor (https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Wolfram-Re...)
An open question independent of the author: What do people use Mathematica for that can't be done in R, SAS, Matlab, SPSS or Python libraries. Is it a great innovation that other tools have caught up with, or is it still getting a lot of use at the bleeding edge?
All those don't offer a seamless environment, that's hassle free, easy to setup, with commercial support, a great GUI, great documentation and works across so many science domains and with different approaches.
So, the question is quite (but not that severely) like "what people do with excavators that you can't do with spades".
The answer is, nothing much, except tons.
I do wonder if they have ever thought of building a Mathematica Machine like the old Lisp and Smalltalk machines?
Great news. I'm particularly excited to see that they're implementing more thorough builtins for working with ANNs and other ML abstractions.
The current selection of layers is biased a bit towards vision, but my colleague and I are working on recurrent networks as we speak, which will unlock networks that operate on text, audio, and other data of a sequential or temporal character. Hopefully that will land in a few months with 11.1.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After a year of Donald Trump, I find Stephen Wolfram's competent and scientific self-fondness quite refreshing.
Talk about damning with faint praise.
http://www.wolfram.com/language/11/knowledgebase-expansion/f...
I do wonder if they have ever thought of building a Mathematica Machine like the old Lisp and Smalltalk machines?
It might make sense one day when when processor improvements level off even more than they already have.
On the other hand, it might be a neat idea to OEM a high end x86 system and sell it as a purpose built "mathematica machine," with Mathematica pre-installed, the best supported GPU, optimal RAM and CPU, etc.
I do wonder if they have ever thought of building a Mathematica Machine like the old Lisp and Smalltalk machines?
And what good would that be? Besides being single purpose and not running tons of other software?
An open question independent of the author: What do people use Mathematica for that can't be done in R, SAS, Matlab, SPSS or Python libraries. Is it a great innovation that other tools have caught up with, or is it still getting a lot of use at the bleeding edge?