341–350 of 358 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think hardware stuff is an expected exception because there are basically no open-source architectures.
There are at least RISC-V, OpenRISC, MIPS and maybe SPARC: https://riscv.org/ https://openrisc.io/ https://www.mips.com/mipsopen/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARC#Open_source_implementati...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, in Scheme, vectors are not made of cons cells. Second, in Clojure, you can certainly make lists, trees etc. from cons cells. It's just that vectors and maps are more common. Third, Clojure is not only a Lisp ( https://clojure.org/about/lisp ), but an exceptionally good one at that. I'm amazed that some people find that controversial. I love Scheme and Clojure, and the thought that they're not both Lisps -- som…
> First, in Scheme, vectors are not made of cons cells. Lisp, too, has vectors not made of cons cells. > make lists, trees etc. from cons cells It's just that they aren't. Clojure uses persistent lazy sequences not made of cons cells as its basic data structure. And it has strange behavior: user=> (conj '(1 2) 0) (0 1 2) user=> (cons 0 '(1 2)) (0 1 2) Thus we have the same external representation. user=> (class (conj…
Clojure requires that the second element in the pair be an ISeq.
> since it is mostly incompatible and lacks a lot of the usual Lisp features.
I and many others disagree, including Clojure's designers, who designed it as a Lisp. Homoiconicity, macros, S-expressions and FP make a language a Lisp. OCaml and SML are about as different as Scheme and Clojure, yet no one thinks they're not both MLs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, Unity allows commercial uses either for free in some circumstances, or very, very cheap, so long as your annual revenue is less than $2M. That makes it a no-brainer to use--you pay little or no licensing fees until your game takes off. Unity makes their money off the unpredictable winners, while gifting a nearly free product to the hobbyist and startup ecosystem. Wolfram Engine is more like the Epic Games (Unreal…
UE4's pricing model is a lot like Unity's pricing model nowadays as far as I can tell.
Based on great comments and questions, we updated the "frequently anticipated questions" to "frequently asked questions" (at midnight last night, on Stephen's laptop).
We have a feeling this will continuously be updated - please let us know if you have any questions, if something isn't quite clear, or just what you're going to do with it.
https://www.wolfram.com/engine/faq/
Cheers!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then maybe open source definition should update as new ways to exploit it have been found?
Agreed, but I think there would be big pushback from OSS proponents - in theory changes like this are diametrically opposed to the "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" tenent. The problem of big cloud providers ripping off OSS works is a new one, but it is explicitly allowed by OSS licenses - really not sure what a "good" solution is here, but personally I like the route TimescaleDB has gone down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you're not. It's tiresome, especially when people comment who obviously never had to solve hard integrals or pde's to even come up with a model which can then be implemented in an algorithm. I'm absolutely stunned how short-sighted many of the commenters are. I use Mathematica daily and, still, I appreciate Julia, Python, R. All this talk about data-scientists only using open-source is ridiculous. At my universit…
If no one ever criticized restrictions, we wouldn't have the freedom we have today. Most people here are complaining about the license, not the software. They think the software is good but the license is holding it down. To me this looks like valuable feedback.
> They think the software is good but the license is holding it down
The issue I'm really trying to point out is
They think the software is cost free but the license is holding it down
Wolfram Engine has always been good, but it seems people are more in a huff because it's priced free but not open source.
I.e expecting that if something is given to you at no cost, it also must be open sourced.
Can anyone explain the difference between the Wolfram Language and Matlab/Julia? I understand it has a better story for symbolic mathematics, but how often do people need that? Personally, I've found numeric computation more useful in 99% of the cases; do others have a different experience?
> Personally, I've found numeric computation more useful in 99% of the cases; do others have a different experience? Yes, of course they do. For example, if they want to obtain a general, symbolic, solution to a problem, rather than estimates of particular numerical values. I'm sorry to sound a bit dismissive, but on HN it is common to hear people say stuff like "Oh, I find code much more helpful than math" and it's…
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.
Yea, I was going to say that many solvers are closed-source and incredibly expensive and have very restrictive licenses (basically all the good ones).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Personally, I've found numeric computation more useful in 99% of the cases; do others have a different experience? Yes, of course they do. For example, if they want to obtain a general, symbolic, solution to a problem, rather than estimates of particular numerical values. I'm sorry to sound a bit dismissive, but on HN it is common to hear people say stuff like "Oh, I find code much more helpful than math" and it's…
A dumbfounded example . All you need for this is a cas system or some gruelling head computation that can solve This step or formula nothing more and not wolfram specifically .