Most languages I can understand how they work 'under the hood' but Mathematica just seems able to do things that I can barely imagine coding. E.g. A function that can produce the integral of any other arbitrary function?
Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica
141–150 of 191 posts
Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wolfram deserves some kudos for that. I feel like the other drug dealers in history might be offended at not getting at least some credit here for inventing this method.
I'm quite pro Free Software but I think that analogy is stretching it too much. In fact, I think it's so hyperbolic it ends up working against the point you're trying to make, which is one I agree with (e.g., I really like Mathematica, but I'm teaching my kid Sage for now).
Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica
#143Earlier 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.
Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Python ended up at the core of data science because it was capable of serving a community. A community that produced comprehensive computational libraries, which, combined with the low threshold for getting started, made it more accessible for an audience that is interested in computation first and programming second. This is largely the same audience as for tools like Matlab and Mathematica. And to serve that market…
> We can't know if Mathematica could have taken the place of Python if it was open sourced, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have, not with it's current lispy syntax. There is ton of empirical evidence that overt functional style is unnatural for the human mind, especially beginners. Which is why there is no large scale use of any such language.
Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve come around on Stephen Wolfram. His puffery essentially hurts nobody besides perhaps those close to him, it’s easy to tune out, while his ambition has produced this really wonderful piece of software.
He seems to have a very loving family, having collaborated with his son on various projects quite frequently.
Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica
#146Looking forward to their AGI release, embodied in the Stephen Wolfram holographic avatar, Wolfram Wolfram
Which of course is brought to you by Stephen Wolfram, president, CEO and founder of Wolfram Research Inc., designer of Wolfram Language™ which is available in Wolfram Mathematica™.
Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#148Earlier 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…
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/office/vba/api/overview/exc...
Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica
#149I 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 equat…
Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm quite pro Free Software but I think that analogy is stretching it too much. In fact, I think it's so hyperbolic it ends up working against the point you're trying to make, which is one I agree with (e.g., I really like Mathematica, but I'm teaching my kid Sage for now).
If it's true as you seem be indicating even in your case, then I don't see how it's being hyperbolic. "True but sad" still includes "true".
I stand by the fact that the comparison to drug dealers is not true. There's a very, very long path from legal but shady (to me) business practices to things like engaging in all out war with rival dealers, getting people hooked on stuff that in many cases renders them zombies, torturing and killing people that owe you money or that get in your way, forcing rural people to plant what you want or getting them killed or displaces, which are all part of the things drug dealers do. Not even the Microsoft from the 90s was comparable to that.
So, to try and restate my original reply in a hopefully clearer way: I agree with the point you're trying to make, but I think the analogy you chose may go against it for some readers.