Version 11 of Mathematica

#1

Post by NoXReX » Mon, Aug 08, 2016, 4:55 PM UTC

Version 11 of Mathematica
blog.wolfram.com

Re: Version 11 of Mathematica

#2

Post by Aardwolf » Mon, Aug 08, 2016, 5:05 PM UTC

Would have been great if this version fixed the syntax.

Square brackets for function arguments makes no sense, neither mathematically, nor programming language wise :)

Same for Sin requiring a capital letter, and curly braces instead of square brackets for matrices

Re: Version 11 of Mathematica

#3

Post by grabcocque » Mon, Aug 08, 2016, 5:06 PM UTC

Wow, he's rather fond of himself, isn't he.

Re: Version 11 of Mathematica

#4

Post by verandaguy » Mon, Aug 08, 2016, 5:08 PM UTC

Great news. I'm particularly excited to see that they're implementing more thorough builtins for working with ANNs and other ML abstractions.

Re: Version 11 of Mathematica

#5

Post by protomyth » Mon, Aug 08, 2016, 5:08 PM UTC

I do wonder if they have ever thought of building a Mathematica Machine like the old Lisp and Smalltalk machines?

Re: Version 11 of Mathematica

#6

Post by gavinpc » Mon, Aug 08, 2016, 5:08 PM UTC

grabcocque wrote: post #3

Wow, he's rather fond of himself, isn't he.

Okay, it's been said. Now let's move on. For more, see all previous submissions with SW as the author.

Beneath all the bluster, the product does in fact appear to be an embarrassment of riches for programmers (or at least its customers).

Re: Version 11 of Mathematica

#7

Post by dang » Mon, Aug 08, 2016, 5:13 PM UTC

gavinpc wrote: post #6

grabcocque wrote: post #3

Wow, he's rather fond of himself, isn't he.

Okay, it's been said. Now let's move on. For more, see all previous submissions with SW as the author. Beneath all the bluster, the product does in fact appear to be an embarrassment of riches for programmers (or at least its customers).

Yes. It's kind of a test for HN whether the thread can discuss anything other than this.

Re: Version 11 of Mathematica

#8

Post by verandaguy » Mon, Aug 08, 2016, 5:14 PM UTC

Aardwolf wrote: post #2

Would have been great if this version fixed the syntax. Square brackets for function arguments makes no sense, neither mathematically, nor programming language wise :) Same for Sin requiring a capital letter, and curly braces instead of square brackets for matrices

Builtin functions in at least most previous versions of Mathematica have required capitalized names; I think it's got to do with disambiguation vs user-defined functions (e.g. builtin `Sin` is the mathematical sine funciton, while the user-defined `sin` prints the seven deadly sins for whatever reason -- you still retain access to both this way).

As for square brackets for parameters, it's unconventional, for sure, but not ambiguous because list literals use curly braces anyway.

Re: Version 11 of Mathematica

#9

Post by delish » Mon, Aug 08, 2016, 5:22 PM UTC

I recommend that Stephen Wolfram skeptics read this press release. I was surprised by language-level support for 3D printing:

    In Version 11 it’s finally realistic to take any 3D plot, and just 3D print it.

I didn't know that I wanted this until I saw it. Generally I prefer small, simple languages. But Mathematica is my favorite large language.

I'm also happy that, even though Mathematica 11 introduces flashy features like 3D printing support and a Logo-derivative, it also includes improved support for calculus. Is there anyone else like Wolfram, i.e. a math-person who presides over a very-pragmatic, very-large programming language? That's not a rhetorical question.

A question for Mathematica-folk: does Mathematica have support for direct manipulation like Toby Schachman's works?[] I find direct manipulation more pleasant than typing characters.

[] http://tobyschachman.com/

Re: Version 11 of Mathematica

#10

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 08, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

[deleted]