Wolfram Language and Mathematica version 15

Post by huhtenberg » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 8:37 AM UTC

kridsdale1 wrote: post #22

orochimaaru wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't make sense even for academia. Reproducibility is an issue and as we've seen with recent fraudulent claims in major publications - it's what is going to be used for verification of research. Many years back while in grad school I could not reproduce a result from a paper. Thankfully they had provided the data as public but not the code. I emailed the authors and got some matlab code back. My university didn…

The situation you’re describing is probably why Python is the defacto language of Machine Learning to this day.

Post by themafia » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 9:30 AM UTC

mr_mitm wrote: post #70

themafia wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to find Wolfram tedious but I've not seem him be particularly disruptive to other efforts nor did his crankery lead to his current success. He's on the same level with Eric Weinstein. Your best bet is to ignore them.

I'd like to push back on that comparison. At least unlike Weinstein, Wolfram produced a genuinely impressive and useful piece of software, which empowers scientists and students worldwide. While his physics work is a little questionable and not too interesting, he doesn't seem to care too much what other people think. He'd never latch on to some podcast bro to give his ideas a wider reach. All Weinstein does is drop…

Post by zipy124 » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 9:44 AM UTC

orochimaaru wrote: post #6

Lucasoato wrote: post #2

I’ve used Mathematica at university, it’s so great! Creating fractals, animations and so on is so easy and intuitive. The problem though is that Wolfram is a walled garden. When you think about integrating it in an enterprise environment, you get hit by such high costs, it stops making sense. Imagine if they open sourced it, I feel like their products have so much utility, buried deep down Wolfram ecosystem and conve…

It doesn't make sense even for academia. Reproducibility is an issue and as we've seen with recent fraudulent claims in major publications - it's what is going to be used for verification of research. Many years back while in grad school I could not reproduce a result from a paper. Thankfully they had provided the data as public but not the code. I emailed the authors and got some matlab code back. My university didn…

Post by geertj » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 10:03 AM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #80

Maro wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is well known, old news. I would not call him a crank, he's just an "independent physicist". He is a very successful and wealthy businessman thanks to Mathematica, with $100Ms of wealth presumably, and he choses to do physics in his own way, pursuing subjects that he finds interesting, in ways he finds interesting. And he writes about his work and himself in grandiose ways, usually comparing himself to Newton an…

> I would not call him a crank > And he writes about his work and himself in grandiose ways, usually comparing himself to Newton and Einstein ... Nothing major has come out of his research okay

Post by srean » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 10:29 AM UTC

bonzini wrote: post #88

srean wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not looked at the implementation but isn't the idea to write a Lispy language in Rust (in other words, Mathematica the language ) and then write the differentiation and other routines in that .

No, they're implementing all functions, all matching etc. in Rust.