Live data from Hacker News

Wolfram Language

reference.wolfram.com

21–30 of 132 posts

Re: Wolfram Language

#21
post #19
post #10

Has the language grown much faster in recent years? I coded some microarray data analysis in Mathematica at one point a few years ago, and was very disappointed in the slow execution, it made it unusable. It may have been a "naive" implementation that could be much improved, but a similarly naive Java implementation was much faster and not significantly more difficult to write.

Depends on what you mean by recent. In the last 10 years: yes, much faster for number crunching (like SVD, Cholesky, determinant computations, etc).

Thanks, good to know. I'm most interested though in the parts between the canned procedures (which I assume are written in C or similar), for custom algorithms. For example loops which manipulate arrays and pattern matching (probably not the right term, maybe "rule selection")?

I seem to remember the pattern matching was especially slow, though very powerful. Had the latter been fast enough to use, it would have been a big advantage over Java. I'd be happy with single pass linear matching like ML/Haskell if it were just much faster than what I experienced with Mathematica's, I wonder if there's a way of doing that? Or type hinting, which most dynamic languages seem to eventually need to eek out more performance?

Hard to imagine that Mathematica wouldn't need something like that for good performance when you stray from the canned routines, but I'd like to be wrong!

Re: Wolfram Language

#22
Any open source version? Also, to people who have implemented their own language interpreters before, is the description enough to attempt an open source version of it? Might be a fun exercise to try to implement it in jison.

Re: Wolfram Language

#23
post #21
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on what you mean by recent. In the last 10 years: yes, much faster for number crunching (like SVD, Cholesky, determinant computations, etc).

Thanks, good to know. I'm most interested though in the parts between the canned procedures (which I assume are written in C or similar), for custom algorithms. For example loops which manipulate arrays and pattern matching (probably not the right term, maybe "rule selection")? I seem to remember the pattern matching was especially slow, though very powerful. Had the latter been fast enough to use, it would have been…

Did you use Compile[] in your functions?

Re: Wolfram Language

#24

When I was a student at university in 2003-2008, I loved, loved, loved Mathematica language, Mathematica uncluttered cell-based editor and rich interactive documentation. You could execute and edit examples right in the doc! I did so many things: nicely formatted pages (much easier to type in complex formulas than in LaTeX), computing simulations, crazy charts etc. I never could understand how people can use Matlab o…

Yeah I liked it as well; the notebook execution especially. Makes me sad to see how primitive iPython/iHaskell now are compared to the Mathematica editor almost 20 years ago. I hoped it would be the about same experience or better, but it's far from. Especially the web version for iHaskell (I assume the iPython web version is the same?) is horrible, absolutely horrible. But the idea is great and it is possible to mak…

Well this is how it is now I'm afraid. There are "data scientists" using IPython convinced that they themselves and the tools they use are on the cutting edge. Like there are database people who think MongoDB is advanced. Or web guys using their favourite "framework" kidding themselves they're doing anything more complicated than Perl CGIs did in 1994.

It's like an Amiga owner being shown a "multimedia" PC in 1995 and thinking, I was doing all this 10 years ago.

Re: Wolfram Language

#25
post #8

This looks almost identical to Mathematica. What's the difference?

It is. This is just a description of the language used in Mathematica. Since they are also releasing other products that use the same core language, it looks like they are presenting it in a product-neutral form, but it is just the language of Mathematica.

I'm going to continue programming "in Mathematica" then. Definitely not going to rub his ego by programming "in Wolfram"!

His company offers great products... but his personality irritates me.

Re: Wolfram Language

#26
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I liked it as well; the notebook execution especially. Makes me sad to see how primitive iPython/iHaskell now are compared to the Mathematica editor almost 20 years ago. I hoped it would be the about same experience or better, but it's far from. Especially the web version for iHaskell (I assume the iPython web version is the same?) is horrible, absolutely horrible. But the idea is great and it is possible to mak…

Well this is how it is now I'm afraid. There are "data scientists" using IPython convinced that they themselves and the tools they use are on the cutting edge. Like there are database people who think MongoDB is advanced. Or web guys using their favourite "framework" kidding themselves they're doing anything more complicated than Perl CGIs did in 1994. It's like an Amiga owner being shown a "multimedia" PC in 1995 an…

Amiga example works; took me definitely over 10 years to stop saying that after I was forced to move to PCs. And then I had it with Unix (SparcStation 5s which never crashed and never had to be rebooted against our uni's 100s of PCs which were mandatory rebooted during the night otherwise they were unusable during the day, and still were actually), luckily everyone listened and we're all using that now. Well no, but at least you CAN now without being hopelessly crippled.

Thing is ; these notebook interfaces COULD be really brilliant, but they suck and I don't know why. Maybe just not enough people working on them?

Re: Wolfram Language

#27
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well this is how it is now I'm afraid. There are "data scientists" using IPython convinced that they themselves and the tools they use are on the cutting edge. Like there are database people who think MongoDB is advanced. Or web guys using their favourite "framework" kidding themselves they're doing anything more complicated than Perl CGIs did in 1994. It's like an Amiga owner being shown a "multimedia" PC in 1995 an…

Amiga example works; took me definitely over 10 years to stop saying that after I was forced to move to PCs. And then I had it with Unix (SparcStation 5s which never crashed and never had to be rebooted against our uni's 100s of PCs which were mandatory rebooted during the night otherwise they were unusable during the day, and still were actually), luckily everyone listened and we're all using that now. Well no, but…

For the same reason that GIMP is no Photoshop.

Re: Wolfram Language

#28

When I was a student at university in 2003-2008, I loved, loved, loved Mathematica language, Mathematica uncluttered cell-based editor and rich interactive documentation. You could execute and edit examples right in the doc! I did so many things: nicely formatted pages (much easier to type in complex formulas than in LaTeX), computing simulations, crazy charts etc. I never could understand how people can use Matlab o…

Except that the Mathematica editor still lacks a decent undo function: http://undo-for-mathematica.alaifari.com/undo-how-useless/

Re: Wolfram Language

#30
Serious question: How will memory management work for this?

Not-so-serious corollary: How much RAM would a Wolfram wolf if a Wolfram would wolf RAM?

Post reply on HN