Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Software » comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica

Topic: Stephen Wolfram's recent blog
Replies: 19   Last Post: Feb 19, 2013 1:09 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Andrzej Kozlowski

Posts: 226
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Stephen Wolfram's recent blog
Posted: Feb 15, 2013 3:35 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

This sort of thing has appeared on this forum so often that it is in
danger of catching up with RJF's tedious nit picking but unlike in this
latter case there is no obvious intention to annoy someone so it merits
a brief response.

All the things written below may well be arguably true of Mathematica
but not of the language used by Mathematica. That such a language exists
is beyond dispute: it has syntax and it has semantics which makes it a
language. Unlike most other computer languages (but like natural
languages) it has never been formally defined and so there is some doubt
about what belongs to it and what does not, but that does not stop it
being a language. Just like with a natural language, having a name for
it or deciding what belongs to it or not, is not very important unless
the language begins to be used outside its native environment. Anything
that is spoken by people in England is English by definition, the issue
only arises when other's start using it. Is American English a different
or the same language? The very asking of this question requires naming
the language(s) involved.

Similarly the issue of the name of the Mathematica language arises only
if it is going to be used by other programs than Mathematica. This is
actually already happening. These programs, by the way, do not aspire to
reproduce the "MagicPaper" aspects of Mathematica, hence this and the
other proposals below are quite irrelevant. The issue is really only
about syntax and (to a lesser degree) semantics and therefore about "a
language".


Andrzej Kozlowski


On 14 Feb 2013, at 08:10, djmpark <djmpark@comcast.net> wrote:

> Can we answer here? That's what I'm going to do because it seems the
better
> venue and I don't have to type into a small box.
>
> This raises a number of questions. What does "freely available" mean?

Can we
> expect a major change in the business model? And what does Stephen
mean by "
> the programming language of Mathematica ". Is it everything one types
in a
> notebook? Or just things that get sent to the kernel? How about things
that
> get sent to the front end? How about Text cells and Section headers?
>
> The way I feel about it is: "We don't need no stinking programming
> language!" Many of the employees at WRI need a programming language

but why
> do the users need one?
>
> Instead of thinking of writing a computer program, why can't one think

of
> writing function definitions, equations, specifications (for a graphic
or
> table say, or for initial data), axioms (as Rules say) and other
literate
> forms of expression? I like to think of Mathematica as a piece of
paper on
> which we develop, write, and communicate ideas with a significant
> mathematical or computational content.
>
> So how about a name like MagicPaper because the piece of paper has

rather
> magical qualities, with its computational power, memory and access to
a wide
> spectrum of information? Or maybe CPR for Computational Paper with
> Resources. It really does get to the heart of the matter. Maybe static
> "Paper" is not quite right but Windows might annoy the Mac people and
> Screens isn't too great. Anyway, paper was used to doodle, try out

ideas,
> calculate and do symbolic math, and communicate ideas and that's what
we
> want to catch.
>
> I see people who write in "Mathematica" as ranging from those simply

using
> it as a graphical calculator, to those writing extensive scholarly
works
> (which I call Actomes for Active Tomes) that consist of books in the
form of
> a collection of notebooks, a number of packages with full
documentation
> (through Workbench unless WRI comes up with something better). These
can be
> wonderful things because they can act as a vehicle for exchanging
ideas and
> further development between authors and readers, or among groups of
readers.
> The other users are readers of such productions.
>
> It doesn't seem quite right to try to isolate the "programming

language"
> part of this - or even think in the paradigm of programming.
>
>
> David Park
> djmpark@comcast.net
> http://home.comcast.net/~djmpark/index.html
>
>
>
> From: danl@wolfram.com [mailto:danl@wolfram.com]
>
>
> Readers of comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica (MathGroup) might be

interested in
> the latest blog from Stephen Wolfram.
>
>

http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2013/02/what-should-we-call-the-language-of-m
> athematica/
>
> It raises the question of what to call the programming language of
> Mathematica. I will quote from near the end:
>
> "What should the name be? I'm hoping to get feedback on the ideas I've
> discussed here, as well as to get new suggestions."
>
> The Comments section has reached 66 as of the time of my writing this note.
> And the blog is but a few hours old. Suggestions are solicited.
>
> Daniel Lichtblau
> Wolfram Research
>
>






Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.