281–290 of 358 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ll add to the list: mathematical modelling, optimization, control, essentially all machine learning, etc. Except for perhaps optimizers (which some of the best are closed source, e.g. Mosek), the entire rest of the stack is open source.
CUDA is not open source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, in fact Common Lisp was what I almost started investing my energy in before Julia. I almost referenced Common Lisp in the parent post alongside Julia but didn't because I never learned it very well and didn't want to speak from ignorance. My understanding though is that most of the statements I made also apply in CL though my impression at least from the point of view of scientific computation is that Julia's co…
Julia is influenced by the Common Lisp Object System. But it made it fast for numerical computing. So there is a Julia lesson for CLOS... http://p-cos.blogspot.com/2014/07/a-lispers-first-impression...
I’d like to come back to CL at some point though and gain some proficiency as I think there’s a lot in CL left for Julia to learn from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, in fact Common Lisp was what I almost started investing my energy in before Julia. I almost referenced Common Lisp in the parent post alongside Julia but didn't because I never learned it very well and didn't want to speak from ignorance. My understanding though is that most of the statements I made also apply in CL though my impression at least from the point of view of scientific computation is that Julia's co…
I get the impression that the communities are different. Not that Julia's is "more energetic" (there's actually quite a bit of activity around CL too), but that it's simply a different crowd. The Julia people seem to me to be coming more from the application side of things - computational scientists who want to do a certain job - while the CL people are more interested in CL as a language, without a specific applicat…
> 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…
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 using an AGPL licence, there would be no danger for them!
There are ways around this. I quite like what TimescaleDB have done, with most features OSS, and the more advanced features are under an open source license that permits use for those building a product around it, but preventing TimescaleDB as a service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I’m a representative sample of my fellow software engineers" I'm a bit puzzled about how strongly you seem to be feeling about this topic. Given your comments, you seem to be quite far from the target audience of Mathematica. It's not for software engineers. Most productive work done with Mathematica is not "building software" ... But given all this hostility, have you downloaded it, and have you tried it? Or is all…
I do computer mathematics. I’m the author of a computational group theory package [2], and my day job is in quantum mechanics and quantum computation, but in that I’m building packages in a software engineering capacity. The algebra gets pretty gnarly. Check out a recent paper, which includes both a math [0] and SW [1] component. Perhaps because of this I’m unusually representative of the intersection between math an…
As an old Lisp programmer, it makes me feel good seeing CL applications.
I broadly agree with your points in this conversation but I am downloading the Engine right now. I also did a ten day free trial of Mathematica recently. I have a little time to spare to kick the tires.
BTW, in the same way that Keras has functionality to download some standard data sets and cache them locally, I would like to see more CL projects do the same. Julia has a few such packages. Having easy to access data is a selling point for Wolfram Language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
https://riscv.org/ https://openrisc.io/ https://www.mips.com/mipsopen/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARC#Open_source_implementati...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
You could have phrased that in a far less confrontational manner. Claiming someone you don't know has “zero concept” is unnecessarily confrontational, all the more because you're doing that while simultaneously claiming to represent a huge and varied field with absolutely no cited sources for that claim.
I suspect it was phrased strongly because the GP made the same claim in the opposite direction: "Most software is grounded in an open source development and deployment tool chain".