Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Free Wolfram Engine for Developers

blog.stephenwolfram.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 358 posts

Re: Free Wolfram Engine for Developers

#171

Post by EForEndeavour »

armitron wrote: post #163
georgewfraser wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wolfram language has a very different syntax that Matlab or really any other programming language, and it has a lot of lisp-like metaprogramming capability. It's not as well thought-out as a proper lisp like Clojure, it's verbose and there's a lot of weird corner cases. The editor is very different as well: Mathematica pioneered the notebook concept that was copied by Jupyter, and the Mathematica user experience is s…

Not only would I not call Clojure a "proper lisp" but since it doesn't run any Lisp code and lacks fundamental Lisp data structures (e.g conses), I wouldn't even call it a Lisp.

What do you mean by "it doesn't run any Lisp code"?

For what it's worth, both Wikipedia and the official Clojure website call Clojure a dialect of Lisp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_(programming_language), https://clojure.org/)

Re: Free Wolfram Engine for Developers

#172

Post by gmueckl »

ras_west wrote: post #39
enriquto wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol it's not unique maxima has existed for ages, maple has very similar fatures

Some things that Wolfram Language does that maxima doesn't: machine learning, image processing, audio processing, time series analysis, user interface construction, build-in data, geo computation, natural language processing.... Maxima is just a computer algebra system- one small part of what Wolfram does.

Are Maxima's CAS algorithms comparable to Mathematica's? I have tried to used Sage and other systems in the past, but Mathematica has always been better at finding solutions for what I tried to do. But I have never used Maxima for real.

Re: Free Wolfram Engine for Developers

#173

Post by equalunique »

gricardo99 wrote: post #136
reikonomusha wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m open to being wrong, but my domain is not and has not been web apps. It’s mostly been things like satellite antenna control software, quantum computers, scientific computing, and AI. Each of those domains, in my experience, has been firmly grounded in open source. (It does not mean, of course, that the end product is open source.) I recognize there are some domains that are steeped in closed source solutions with…

I'm not disagreeing with you, just answering your honest question: >What programming language stack do you use that’s closed source? Verilog/System Verilog (generally HDL/FPGA/ASIC design/verification). Yes, it's a niche (some may even say it's not software, it's hardware, but it is indeed a large code base that requires a software engineering environment/toolchain/practices/etc...). Again, just answering your questi…

You wouldn't happen to be a commentor/author for this Reddit post[0], would you? Your sentiment here seems quite similar. I have no experience at all with hardware design, but it seems like that domain is especially geared towards closed-source for specific reasons.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/FPGA/comments/a5pzs5/prediction_ope...

Re: Free Wolfram Engine for Developers

#174

Post by gmueckl »

Spivak wrote: post #109
kgwgk wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mathworks' revenue is $1bn, it has doubled in the last decade. Someone may be using Matlab.

A ridiculously large number of people use Matlab as a tool. I can't think of a single engineer that doesn't curse its name regularly but I've yet to encounter any actual applications written in it. It's Excel for engineers.

I have seen people doing amazing and complex things with Matlab, including fancy GUIs and stuff. But it is almost exclusively used for internal tools as far as I know.

Re: Free Wolfram Engine for Developers

#175

Post by pron »

armitron wrote: post #163
georgewfraser wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wolfram language has a very different syntax that Matlab or really any other programming language, and it has a lot of lisp-like metaprogramming capability. It's not as well thought-out as a proper lisp like Clojure, it's verbose and there's a lot of weird corner cases. The editor is very different as well: Mathematica pioneered the notebook concept that was copied by Jupyter, and the Mathematica user experience is s…

Not only would I not call Clojure a "proper lisp" but since it doesn't run any Lisp code and lacks fundamental Lisp data structures (e.g conses), I wouldn't even call it a Lisp.

Completely tangential, but Clojure is definitely a Lisp, and it does have cons https://clojuredocs.org/clojure.core/cons

Re: Free Wolfram Engine for Developers

#176

Post by armitron »

pron wrote: post #175
armitron wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only would I not call Clojure a "proper lisp" but since it doesn't run any Lisp code and lacks fundamental Lisp data structures (e.g conses), I wouldn't even call it a Lisp.

Completely tangential, but Clojure is definitely a Lisp, and it does have cons https://clojuredocs.org/clojure.core/cons

A Clojure cons is something completely different to a Lisp cons.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34347985/clojure-no-cons...

Re: Free Wolfram Engine for Developers

#177

Post by enriquto »

pron wrote: post #131
enriquto wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's much more to math than numeric computation. Many applied mathematicians spend their lives programming and never use a floating point number.

I know, but that's not what I asked. The question about numeric vs. symbolic was how common it is for software applications to require symbolic mathematics vs. numerical math.

I'd guess if you count combinatorics as symbolic math, then most of software applications are essentially based on symbolic math.

Re: Free Wolfram Engine for Developers

#178

Post by leiroigh »

carlob wrote: post #72

Disclaimer: Wolfram employee here. Opinions here are mine, and not the company's. Having used the Wolfram Language and Mathematica professionally for over seven years I think this is much cooler than the people who greenlighted this within the company realize. If there is one thing I love about the Wolfram Language is how fast it is to prototype something with it. Given the scope of the language (or what you call sta…

Well, apart from the incredible standard library, there is an interesting programming language.

What I think is missing is a stripped down open source implementation / interpreter. What Gnu Octave is to Matlab. That stripped down variant could or could not share some code with the proprietary implementation (realistically, Wolfram would need to open some parts of their code).

I think octave is invaluable for helping Mathworks: Professional users will almost surely buy a license, but a lot of matlab/octave code can be run and hacked on without a mathworks license (albeit slower, and missing a lot of cool features).

The way it is now, all code written by scientists in the Wolfram language is essentially hostage to Wolfram. An octave equivalent would permit people to trust that they continue to meaningfully own their own code.

It is super unlikely that a stripped down slow but open implementation would ever improve to the point of being a meaningful competitor: The thing Wolfram has built is impossible to replicate in the open source world.

Sure, there are other computer algebra systems and other frameworks / languages, but these have very different strengths and weaknesses that make them appropriate for different niches. E.g. sage permits seamless interfacing with the entire python ecosystem (never write a parser or networking code in mathematica! Everybody and his dog publishes python bindings to their C++ libraries nowadays). Or julia with its multiple dispatch and late-AOT/JIT approach that permits permits to write super fast dynamic code that is Fortran / C / C++ level fast.

Re: Free Wolfram Engine for Developers

#179

Post by armitron »

EForEndeavour wrote: post #171
armitron wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only would I not call Clojure a "proper lisp" but since it doesn't run any Lisp code and lacks fundamental Lisp data structures (e.g conses), I wouldn't even call it a Lisp.

What do you mean by "it doesn't run any Lisp code"? For what it's worth, both Wikipedia and the official Clojure website call Clojure a dialect of Lisp ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_(programming_language) , https://clojure.org/ )

Take Lisp code written in the last 50 years and odds are that Common Lisp, Emacs Lisp or Scheme can run it with zero/minimal/moderate modifications.

Clojure needs a total and complete rewrite which doesn't only affect the syntax but program logic. Thus Clojure does not run Lisp code. How can it be a Lisp when it does not run Lisp code?

Re: Free Wolfram Engine for Developers

#180

Post by sweeneyrod »

gricardo99 wrote: post #136
reikonomusha wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m open to being wrong, but my domain is not and has not been web apps. It’s mostly been things like satellite antenna control software, quantum computers, scientific computing, and AI. Each of those domains, in my experience, has been firmly grounded in open source. (It does not mean, of course, that the end product is open source.) I recognize there are some domains that are steeped in closed source solutions with…

I'm not disagreeing with you, just answering your honest question: >What programming language stack do you use that’s closed source? Verilog/System Verilog (generally HDL/FPGA/ASIC design/verification). Yes, it's a niche (some may even say it's not software, it's hardware, but it is indeed a large code base that requires a software engineering environment/toolchain/practices/etc...). Again, just answering your questi…

I think hardware stuff is an expected exception because there are basically no open-source architectures.
Post reply on HN