Live data from Hacker News

Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica

writings.stephenwolfram.com

61–70 of 191 posts

Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica

#61
post #50
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the perspective of a software developer. Neither Mathematica nor Matlab actually try to address this market. Both are languages for mathematicians, scientists and engineers and are still mostly unrivalled when it comes to domain knowledge. Python has the domain knowledge in the datascience domain, Julia has pretty good domain knowledge in OR. No one really comes close to capturing the symbolic computation doma…

I wouldn't lump Mathematica and Matlab together. Not least because Matlab is almost ubiquitous in academia and in engineering while Mathematica is extremely rare.

In physics and obviously math, mathematica is very popular.

Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica

#62
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The saddest thing about Mathematica is that despite the incredible level of effort invested into it by some of the smartest people on the planet, it will inevitably be relegated to the dustbin of history. As a proprietary language and kernel, it can never compete long-term with open source alternatives. It's one thing to have a proprietary product , but for decades now proprietary languages have been a no-go for prac…

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 ago, $176 today. That may be "expensive" but many textbooks cost more than that.]

Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica

#63
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…

Mathematica is great. And Wolfram has carved out a place for himself in this world where he can do what he loves. Give me more people like that.

Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica

#64

...open-source when? There's basically zero widely used programming languages that are not open-source, get to grips with this ffs. Esp. since Wolfram strives to be somewhat-general-purpose in a way (it's not smth like eg. K who's niche anyway) and having an open-source version is crucial in this segment. Hire some ppl (sales, mgmt, product etc.) who know how to make money from open-source (get some from RedHat, IBM…

By far the most popular programming language in the world is propriatary -- Excel.

Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica

#65
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yet it remains unrivalled in control engineering No, its usage is just declining slower in those areas because ppl don't want unnecessary change introducing unnecessary defects, esp since safety and reliability matters a lot for some equipments, and also engineers spend time on smth else than learning new languages and frameworks. In 20 years Matlab will be as legacy as Fortran is now, still some left but mostly fo…

> In 20 years Matlab will be as legacy as Fortran is now Not if MathWorks keep offering discounts to universities for putting MATLAB in the courses, gotta get those undergrads "hooked" early before graduating.

Programming languages are not heroin... people want a tools offering some features and they use whatever has them and is not too hard to learn a new one.

Matlab-class languages are When Julia gets all the advatanges currently in the Python ecosystem (and it's just a matter of time), it's game over. Ppl use Matlab instead of Python bc Python is weird and slow at many linear algebra stuff... AI/ML ppl are OK with Python bc they rarely write low level numerics code and when they do it has to run on stuff other than regular CPUs so it's C anyway.

If Matlab looses (fairly) we all win. But Mathematica/Wolfram is a different thing... there's all the symbolic computing stuff and the idea of integrating access to a general real-world-knowledge-DB into the language itself in there that will take decades to re-invent...

Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica

#66
post #62
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…

It has to be low enough for mass adoption. I’d guess $2/mo or $10/yr.

I paid for the $200 license back in high school 10 years ago and it was absolutely amazing; Really ahead of its time and well worth the money. But today as a software engineer the only feature I’m missing in Python is the ability to run natural language expressions in the middle of my code. Besides that, Python is far superior thanks to the community investment and the ability to easily deploy my code.

Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica

#67
post #50
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the perspective of a software developer. Neither Mathematica nor Matlab actually try to address this market. Both are languages for mathematicians, scientists and engineers and are still mostly unrivalled when it comes to domain knowledge. Python has the domain knowledge in the datascience domain, Julia has pretty good domain knowledge in OR. No one really comes close to capturing the symbolic computation doma…

I wouldn't lump Mathematica and Matlab together. Not least because Matlab is almost ubiquitous in academia and in engineering while Mathematica is extremely rare.

MATLAB seems to be rapidly being displaced by python is my observation.

Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica

#68
post #55
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasted as in not fulfilling its potential even a little bit. Mathematica is a very niche product. It isn't even very relevant in academia or in engineering. But it could have been if Wolfram hadn't hobbled it with unproductive restrictions. It could have had an audience of millions, and that audience would have brought it more value than a single company is capable of creating through a community. Just look at Python…

Just look at Python indeed. As you say it's a much worse language than many others that were equally available to anyone. And yet somehow it's at the the core of the last 15 years of data science, machine learning and whatnot. If Mathematica had been open-sourced twenty years ago it wouldn't have taken the place of Python. It probably would be even more niche today - and worse.

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 it didn't have to be a good programming language. You won't find most data scientists discussing the finer points of functional programming or OO. They'll be discussing what mathematical techniques to use or what stages to string together in order to achieve the computation they want. If you have ever worked with typical data scientists, most of them aren't even half way competent software engineers.

What Python shows is that community beats technical excellence. By orders of magnitude.

Whether or not Mathematica is a better language is irrelevant as it doesn't have the properties required a large community contributing value for free.

We can't know if Mathematica could have taken the place of Python if it was open sourced, because it wasn't open sourced. But it given that it had a more potent programming model, it could have led to a very different path from model to running software, for instance. And it could have made distributed computation arrive a lot earlier.

But it is actually quite a bit more challenging for Mathematica than that since its licensing terms are stricter than products you might compare it to, like Matlab. I don't think Mathematica would even have to be open sourced to be more successful - it would just have to be a less unattractive value proposition. Compare the revenue of Mathworks vs Wolfram Research, for instance. And then take into account that Mathematica has a much more potent programming model that could have far wider applicability than Matlab.

And keep in mind: Matlab doesn't even have a programming model as potent as Mathematica.

I think that the smartest thing Wolfram could have done would have been to open source the language, the runtime, and a reasonable standard library. Then they could have built a business on top of that of reasonably priced interactive software with GUIs, visualization tools, developer tools to make stand-alone applications, server applications for distributed computation and a SaaS solution for customers who want to run computation in the cloud.

And it isn't like Mathworks didn't miss the boat too. But they are still an order of magnitude more successful than Wolfram Research. Which still makes Wolfram Research the slowest kid in the class in terms of unrealized potential.

Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica

#69
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't lump Mathematica and Matlab together. Not least because Matlab is almost ubiquitous in academia and in engineering while Mathematica is extremely rare.

MATLAB seems to be rapidly being displaced by python is my observation.

Yes, I think you are right.

Re: Launching Version 13.1 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica

#70
post #55
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasted as in not fulfilling its potential even a little bit. Mathematica is a very niche product. It isn't even very relevant in academia or in engineering. But it could have been if Wolfram hadn't hobbled it with unproductive restrictions. It could have had an audience of millions, and that audience would have brought it more value than a single company is capable of creating through a community. Just look at Python…

Just look at Python indeed. As you say it's a much worse language than many others that were equally available to anyone. And yet somehow it's at the the core of the last 15 years of data science, machine learning and whatnot. If Mathematica had been open-sourced twenty years ago it wouldn't have taken the place of Python. It probably would be even more niche today - and worse.

> It probably would be even more niche today - and worse.

Maybe, but a better successor would've evolved out of it.

Matlab had Octave as an open source alternative. Not used much, but it inspired the creation of Julia. Based on how fast it's evolving Julia will be the superpowered-grandson-of-Matlab :)

The Mathematica/Wolfram bloodline will unfortunately die off at some point... lots of ideas will be lost and time will have to be spent to reinvent them from scratch atop a different platform... sigh...

(Kind of reminds of the Smalltalk story... in the 80-90s Java won bc. all the practically usable Smalltalk implementations were closed-source and had very bad pricing... We could've had much better OO+interactive languages instead if an open-and-free alternative of it existed... Instead we have ugly Java/C# or slow Ruby in that space.)

Post reply on HN