Live data from Hacker News

Free Wolfram Engine for Developers

blog.stephenwolfram.com

211–220 of 358 posts

Re: Free Wolfram Engine for Developers

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they open sourced it, it would be less than a year before you'd start seeing "Azure Wolfram" and "AWS Wolfram" and so on and I can sort of understand why he might not want that to happen.

If Wolfram is correct in how game changing the Wolfram Language, Engine, et al are, then commoditizing it to the point that there is an "Azure Wolfram" stack and an "AWS Wolfram" stack may be vindication. (Maybe not very profitable vindication, but real bonafide "people are using it and happy with it" vindication.) Azure and AWS already have competing stacks to Wolfram, it is just various and sometimes incompatible h…

There are a lot of poor quality open source packages in use. Some are just chaotic. But people still use them, often just keeping themselves much busier than they need to be. Of course there are a lot of high quality packages in use as well. So popularity does not correlate with quality (in many fields)

If Wolfram open source their stuff and people use it, it won't necessarily be a vindication. At the moment they have people who are willing to part with cash to get what they make. That's a definite vindication for anyone who makes things.

Re: Free Wolfram Engine for Developers

#213

So it only provides a command line interface, but not the notebook interface. Am I getting it right?

There is a Jupyter notebook interface for the Wolfram Language: https://github.com/WolframResearch/WolframLanguageForJupyter Additionally, many IDEs support Wolfram Language for syntax coloring, command completion, contextual help, etc.: http://www.wolfram.com/developer/

I tried this, and it works great. Awesome, Thanks Wolfram!

https://imgur.com/VoHXMtS

Re: Free Wolfram Engine for Developers

#214
post #55

> Why Aren’t You Using Our Technology? It’s not open source. Even if the engine is “free”, I don’t want to build an open source product with it and hope to be granted a “free production license.” If I build something on my own time I don’t want to ask my employer to purchase a “production license” as soon as it becomes useful. Wolfram believes that mathematics software (or “computational knowledge” or whatever he cal…

>But that’s completely at odds with how most software engineers work these days. Most software is grounded in an open source development and deployment tool chain. Imagine saying this with a straight face. Maybe in web development, but the vast majority of programmers are using closed source tools to produce closed source software. You're either thinking of a tiny picture vs the whole picture (web devs vs programming…

[deleted]

Re: Free Wolfram Engine for Developers

#215
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free means no charge for the vast majority of people who can understand English.

“Free” also carries meaning outside of the commercial context and specifically in the context of software to English-speaking software developers. If I heard someone talking about software—especially developer software—being free, I personally would assume they mean “libre”, not “gratis”. But I can understand if that’s not universal.

"I personally would assume they mean “libre”, not “gratis”."

I don't even know what either of those mean and I've been coding and on HN for years. I'm not even sure how to pronounce the first one. In Australia at least, 'free' means it doesn't cost money.

Re: Free Wolfram Engine for Developers

#216
This is very nice. I just tried it with Jupyter and it works. https://imgur.com/VoHXMtS

You can also write a inline script. https://pastebin.com/TYWfS3gk

Is there a limitation of running only one kernel per machine? I had an instance of wolframscript running, and when I ran a script file, I got this error:

> ./test.wl

Connection closed by WolframKernel. This generally means the product is unregistered.

Re: Free Wolfram Engine for Developers

#217
post #55

> Why Aren’t You Using Our Technology? It’s not open source. Even if the engine is “free”, I don’t want to build an open source product with it and hope to be granted a “free production license.” If I build something on my own time I don’t want to ask my employer to purchase a “production license” as soon as it becomes useful. Wolfram believes that mathematics software (or “computational knowledge” or whatever he cal…

>But that’s completely at odds with how most software engineers work these days. Most software is grounded in an open source development and deployment tool chain. Imagine saying this with a straight face. Maybe in web development, but the vast majority of programmers are using closed source tools to produce closed source software. You're either thinking of a tiny picture vs the whole picture (web devs vs programming…

Really? OpenJDK, .NET Core, gcc, etc. are quite popular outside of web dev. What we really need is an open source implementation of the Wolfram language (a side project idea I've had for a while.)

Re: Free Wolfram Engine for Developers

#218
post #55

> Why Aren’t You Using Our Technology? It’s not open source. Even if the engine is “free”, I don’t want to build an open source product with it and hope to be granted a “free production license.” If I build something on my own time I don’t want to ask my employer to purchase a “production license” as soon as it becomes useful. Wolfram believes that mathematics software (or “computational knowledge” or whatever he cal…

>But that’s completely at odds with how most software engineers work these days. Most software is grounded in an open source development and deployment tool chain. Imagine saying this with a straight face. Maybe in web development, but the vast majority of programmers are using closed source tools to produce closed source software. You're either thinking of a tiny picture vs the whole picture (web devs vs programming…

Wolfram Engine is not an IDE, or a photo editor, it is a programming and runtime environment so you can't compare these things. They exist in different worlds. If you want lots of money for people to even use and learn your language, you have to provide a free alternative to get people onboard. You can choose not to, of course, but they you will limit the reach and the importance of the product.

(No, being able to use a sandbox is not sufficient to properly learn any language because that's not how you use languages to build stuff)

And before anyone says how important Wolfram Engine is and that this is the going rate for specialized software: nobody cares. Because you are probably wrong if history is any guide. Lots of software used to be niche software and isn't today. Things change. If it's expensive and only available at a steep price, then only those who need it will buy it. The curious will get their kicks elsewhere.

There used to be a time when database professionals stomped their feet and yelled if you suggested Oracle might consider a Linux port of Oracle. "Impossible! People who use Linux aren't into paying for stuff!". And then it got released and then Linux became its most important platform.

Things change.

In order to get people to include it as an infrastructural component you probably have to ensure that it is free for non-commercial use. I'm not sure if you have to open source it. I use lots of stuff that is free for non commercial use - and then I use it commercially and pay for a license. Occasionally really expensive licenses.

I've looked at Wolfram Engine a few times, but in the end we never used it because it just didn't have a great enough following among programmers. I couldn't just tap into a talent pool when recruiting. It was hard to find experience.

I tend to choose tools based on the _people_ I can find to use them. In fact, usually the people I find choose the tools. That goes for how I choose languages, software, cameras, cars, motorcycles...you name it. No vibrant community means I don't buy in. And sure, there are lots and lots of cameras that are better than mine in that price range. But the cameras are not all that important. The people are. Who I can collaborate with, who I can learn from, who can help me solve problems.

Also, it tended to be a bit on the expensive side for what I wanted to use it for. Sure, I could have contacted Wolfram and said "look, we want to use it for this, but the licensing model doesn't quite fit", but how many developers do this?

(I remember thinking about buying Mathematica several times to tinker with it, get to know it and then perhaps see if I could use it for something. But it was expensive, and I'm not spending that amount of money for something I'll maybe going to play a bit with and then perhaps forget for a year. This too makes Wolfram Engine a bit of "interesting, but I'm not going to invest time in it".

And I can't say I've ever blamed Stephen Wolfram for it. He has a product that makes a bunch of users happy and him rich. Who am I to tell him that he should do things differently? So he exists over there and I exist over here and everyone is happy.

I'm excited about this change. I wish it had happened sooner so it could have had more of an impact. It certainly put Wolfram Engine back on my radar.

Re: Free Wolfram Engine for Developers

#219

> Why Aren’t You Using Our Technology? It’s not open source. Even if the engine is “free”, I don’t want to build an open source product with it and hope to be granted a “free production license.” If I build something on my own time I don’t want to ask my employer to purchase a “production license” as soon as it becomes useful. Wolfram believes that mathematics software (or “computational knowledge” or whatever he cal…

Can someone make an OSS implementation? Doesn't seem impossible especially now that we have Truffle/Graal.

Re: Free Wolfram Engine for Developers

#220
post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Now what's your point?

At the question: "Why Aren’t You Using Our Technology?" you replied "It’s not open source." It's two comments above this. No one asked about programming languages or standard library (except you when you misunderstood my question). Therefore you implied that a good reason not to use a technology is that it's not open source. Literally. Then why are you using Google?

The original commenter did not claim to exclusively use open source software, but only that they have a clear preference for open source.
Post reply on HN