Date: Feb 3, 2013 2:52 AM
Author: Andrzej Kozlowski
Subject: Re: Mathematica and Lisp
On 2 Feb 2013, at 07:15, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:46:19 PM UTC-6, John Doty wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 2:40:17 AM UTC-5, Richard Fateman wrote:
>>> If I were using a computer to do something that required correct answers
>>> for, say, life safety, like building a bridge, I would follow WRI's
>>> advice and not use Mathematica.
>> I use Mathematica in the creation of designs for space flight hardware
>> But, of course, I don't *only* use Mathematica. It's most useful for
>> exploring ideas ahead of detailed analysis with more specialized software.
>> But in my business counting on unverified calculation, regardless of the
>> source, is asking for trouble.
> I will add to this that I am not aware of any such advice from Wolfram Research. The post by RJF had the URL
>> (see http://www.wolframalpha.com/termsofuse/)
> This is for Wolfram|Alpha and is mostly irrelevant to Mathematica. I suspect this is the more appropriate legal agreement.
> I believe somewhere the documentation recommends against use for certain types of life-safety applications involving real-time computation. That's not the same thing as designing a bridge, or a jet plane, or landing control software, or medical devices, or drugs, or...
> Daniel Lichtblau
> Wolfram Research
RFJ has been posting this and all his other comments periodically for about a quarter century now so obviously it would be unreasonable to expect him to bother about such fine distinctions like those between WolframAlpha or Mathematica, real-time computation or designing a bridge etc, etc. He also claims to be an "expert" of on the Mathematica language on the basis of having written a Lisp parser for version 2 (or was it 1?) and one that no serious Mathematica users are known to have ever used or tested. Unfortunately, on the rare occasions when he gets involved in discussing some finer points of the Mathematica language his "expertise" turns out to be shaky, as anyone can verify by searching through the archives of this list. So the situation is rather like someone claiming be an expert on the Russian language on the basis of having translated Slovo O Polku Igorevie into Swahili, while his practical knowledge appears to be on the level of http://www.shokhirev.com/nikolai/lang/RussianIn33min.html