Why Wolfram Mathematica did not use Lisp (2002)
1–10 of 145 posts
Re: Why Wolfram Mathematica did not use Lisp (2002)
#2Isn't Mathematica very Lispy? It looks like R-expressions.
Re: Why Wolfram Mathematica did not use Lisp (2002)
#3[deleted]
Re: Why Wolfram Mathematica did not use Lisp (2002)
#4[deleted]
Re: Why Wolfram Mathematica did not use Lisp (2002)
#5Random Wolfram story, was at lunch yesterday at my old college and respected computer scientist who originally interviewed me. He told me that he first showed Wolfram a computer.
This guy was a friend of Wolfram's mother who asked for help because 8 year old Stephen was "bored with dinosaurs" and wanted something else to think about.
Re: Why Wolfram Mathematica did not use Lisp (2002)
#6Seems like a good example of technical people placing too much importance on a technical decision.
It seems clear Lisp would have been a perfectly fine choice, as would a number of other languages. It also seems unlikely the world (or even Mathematica) would be dramatically different for it.
I wish more "X is better than Y because of Z" discussions would admit aesthetics were an important factor. Instead we end up with convoluted justifications that just annoy everyone (Lisp is slow, C is fast, C++ is complicated)
Re: Why Wolfram Mathematica did not use Lisp (2002)
#7Isn't Mathematica very Lispy? It looks like R-expressions.
Well M-expressions to be more precise. Actually if you ask some they'll tell you that Mathematica is the only Lisp that implemented them.
Re: Why Wolfram Mathematica did not use Lisp (2002)
#8Seems like a good example of technical people placing too much importance on a technical decision. It seems clear Lisp would have been a perfectly fine choice, as would a number of other languages. It also seems unlikely the world (or even Mathematica) would be dramatically different for it. I wish more "X is better than Y because of Z" discussions would admit aesthetics were an important factor. Instead we end up wi…
To me it sounds more like NIH syndrome. Wolfram was young, smart, cocky, and didn't really know much about computation when he started - but was convinced he could do a better job if he started from scratch.
Re: Why Wolfram Mathematica did not use Lisp (2002)
#9Seems like a good example of technical people placing too much importance on a technical decision. It seems clear Lisp would have been a perfectly fine choice, as would a number of other languages. It also seems unlikely the world (or even Mathematica) would be dramatically different for it. I wish more "X is better than Y because of Z" discussions would admit aesthetics were an important factor. Instead we end up wi…
It appears that the discussion on arbitrary precision vs machine precision is obsolete as it does not seem to apply to Mathematica, maybe it used to be true for SMP, though I'm not sure.