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

Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica

writings.stephenwolfram.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 191 posts

Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica

#111

Post by 323 »

kgwgk wrote: post #102
323 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> much worse language than many others that were equally available to anyone I've been there during the Python take over and world and it's not my recollection of how it went. Which are those superior languages that you are talking about? An important property of Python is that while it may not excel at many things, it's good or decent at everything. Unlike specialized languages like R for example which sucks at ever…

Common lisp and a handful of other scheme/lisp variants, for example, if we talk about high-level general purpose languages. Lush was a lispy open-source language - implemented in C - that deserved a better outcome. And of course there were other scripting languages around like Perl, Tcl and Lua. Torch was built on top of the latter, by the way.

The consensus at the time was that one should only use Perl/Tcl for legacy reasons. And that these languages should be replaced with Python.

A few examples, there were countless articles like these:

2000 Eric Raymond (!) - Why Python?

> It was at this point I realized I was probably leaving Perl behind. ... For anything larger or more complex, I have come to prefer the subtle virtues of Python—and I think you will, too.

https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3882

2002 What's wrong with Perl:

https://www.garshol.priv.no/download/text/perl.html

Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica

#112

Post by bdowling »

forgotpwd16 wrote: post #37
yccs27 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately I don't think this will happen: The Wolfram Language has a _huge_ library of functions from various domains, which is where most of its strength comes from. If you had the time and money to reimplement all of them, you could just make a competing product with better API. I don't think there is enough commercial interest in running existing Wolfram Language code without Mathematica.

Exactly. Implementing the language is one thing. Mathics does it well. But implementing the vast library is much harder. (Though the essentials are possible as proved by Mathics.) Let alone assembling the countless example data it comes with. Also nitpick but you can run Wolfram code without Mathematica directly using the Wolfram Engine.

Thank you for mentioning Mathics, https://mathics.org/.

Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica

#113

Post by wiz21c »

fn-mote wrote: post #89
wiz21c wrote: post #10

How does R compare to Mathematica for data science ?

The ergonomics of R are terrible compared to Mathematica. (My opinion, obviously.) In R, packages are developed by separate authors. Similar functions don't have similar interfaces. There's no unity of style. In Mathematica, much more careful thought was given to everything, including at a very basic level: names of functions. Now I'm a big fan of the Tidyverse, and the fact that such a post-hoc language cleanup was…

For what I know of R (about 1.5 year full time with it; probabilities modelling/data analysis), I concur: the ecosystem is rich AND messy. I'm super impressed by the quality of everything, but it's often a "needle in a haystack" experience... Interstingly, I was a strong python pogrammer so I started to do my stuff with scipy and so on while cursing at R every 5 minutes. And after that year, tables have turned, I much prefer to work with R...

Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica

#114

Post by ISL »

dig1 wrote: post #36
n-e-w wrote: post #6

Rather than just bashing Stephen's personality and rehashing Cosma Shalizi's driveby on NKOS, can we try and focus on the technical accomplishment that Mathematica represents? It really is an astounding system. If you enjoy functional programming, the language is super expressive and productive. The integrated libraries are fantastic -- especially if you want to chain together different knowledge domains through a co…

I will second this. Wolfram (Stephen and company) marketing isn't spot on, but I'm yet going to find a system like Mathematica. People on HN forget that most of the places where Mathematica is intended to (R&D, math/physics departments, research facilities etc.) don't have tech people willing to battle with Python versions, packages, Jupyter installations, and all sort of nuances - they just want an installation they…

I recall some unpleasant fights with license-servers in my past.

Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica

#115

Post by nborwankar »

I think it’s fair to say that the documentation system of Mathematica is the best documentation for any software language anywhere in the world at any time. Not exaggerating one bit. There are not only practical example snippets for every language function but also tutorials and technical deep dives on related topic areas such as signal processing, video analysis, partial differential equations such as the heat equation and wave equations with rich 2D and 3D visualizing s of potentials and flows over surfaces. It’s very powerful for exploratory research that involves deep math and nothing else comes anywhere close. The fact that it’s a functional language makes it much easier to compose functions while just trying out new ideas but it’s not really a general purpose programming language as much as it is a mathematical computation system. And the huge bonus is that you never ever have to import anything or worry that a new version of a critical lib will topple your version dependency house of cards. All subsystems and libraries are internally consistent and always available, without need to import and with context sensitive help.

Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica

#116

Post by capableweb »

zaphar wrote: post #87
capableweb wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excel is built with programming language and can certainly be used as one, but that doesn't mean it is one. It's also a bit anal to classify Excel as a programming language, most people would say spreadsheets are a tool, where you could write programs, but again, doesn't mean it's a programming language. At most, I'd give you that Excel is a tool that can do "visual programming", but that's far of from being a "progr…

This is unfair and a far too narrow definition of programming language. Excel sits very squarely in the functional reactive language space. Just because most of it's users don't "know" they are programming and most of our common tools don't work with it doesn't change the fact that it has pretty much all of the building blocks that any programming language gives you. Are there domains where Excel is awkward to use? A…

I guess what I was trying to say that Excel as commonly known, is a programming environment, rather than a language. Where you can use the "Excel" programming language for performing most (if not all) tasks a general purpose programming language can.

But it's still a bit like saying "Eclipse" is a programming language. You can do programming in Eclipse, that is true, but you can also do other things that are not programming, which makes Eclipse a programming environment. Just like with Excel.

Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica

#117

Post by zaphar »

capableweb wrote: post #116
zaphar wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is unfair and a far too narrow definition of programming language. Excel sits very squarely in the functional reactive language space. Just because most of it's users don't "know" they are programming and most of our common tools don't work with it doesn't change the fact that it has pretty much all of the building blocks that any programming language gives you. Are there domains where Excel is awkward to use? A…

I guess what I was trying to say that Excel as commonly known, is a programming environment, rather than a language. Where you can use the "Excel" programming language for performing most (if not all) tasks a general purpose programming language can. But it's still a bit like saying "Eclipse" is a programming language. You can do programming in Eclipse, that is true, but you can also do other things that are not prog…

I don't think this is a true dividing line for a programming language. The Smalltalk language for instance combines both the programming environment and the language together. I don't think anyone seriously argues that smalltalk is not a programming language.

Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica

#118

Post by [deleted] »

kgwgk wrote: post #62
bborud wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first time I encountered Mathematica was 30 years ago, and I genuinely thought that within a decade this would be a tool that everyone would learn in college. A few years later, when working at the university I was a bit puzzled to find that while you could find things like Matlab on the various computer labs around campus (usually running some flavor of Unix), Mathematica was nowhere to be seen. Not even on the…

> Mathematica has always been a lovely product. But it has also always been impractical due to its pricing and restrictions. Whether you are in academia, a working professional or just a hobbyist. [...] There is no reason to believe this will change. The hobbyist license is less than $200 per year. What kind of pricing would make it practical for you? [Edit: The student license (non-expiring) was $139 twenty years ag…

[deleted]

Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica

#119

Post by kgwgk »

323 wrote: post #111
kgwgk wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common lisp and a handful of other scheme/lisp variants, for example, if we talk about high-level general purpose languages. Lush was a lispy open-source language - implemented in C - that deserved a better outcome. And of course there were other scripting languages around like Perl, Tcl and Lua. Torch was built on top of the latter, by the way.

The consensus at the time was that one should only use Perl/Tcl for legacy reasons. And that these languages should be replaced with Python. A few examples, there were countless articles like these: 2000 Eric Raymond (!) - Why Python? > It was at this point I realized I was probably leaving Perl behind. ... For anything larger or more complex, I have come to prefer the subtle virtues of Python—and I think you will, t…

To clarify, I was mentioning Perl/Tcl as existing alternatives that were "equally bad" as Python - not necessarily better. In any case, the fact that a teaching language like python ended being used for numerical computing - a task that it was not suited for - is accidental.

Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica

#120

Post by [deleted] »

danuker wrote: post #100
jiggawatts wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once in a blue moon I use Mathematica as an overpowered calculator. I keep it around partly for nostalgia, and partly because it makes me feel like a true computer scientist . Every time I use it, I have this mental image of using a 500 ton press to crack a walnut. It's ludicrous overkill, but it brings a certain satisfaction to be able to use arbitrary precision maths when I don't need to, and use nonlinear fits for…

> no-free option Perhaps Wolfram Alpha is a "free option" for the once-in-a-blue-moon use case. But you might lose any work at any moment, if Wolfram decides to turn it off.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN