Date: Feb 18, 2013 5:59 AM
Subject: Re: Stephen Wolfram's recent blog
email@example.com ha pensato forte :
> It raises the question of what to call the programming language of
I've always called it (and seen it called) "Mathematica". Like in "a
small Mathematica program..." or "few lines of Mathematica code...", or
"the Mathematica programming language is..."
What's wrong with that?
It's not marketing viable since now there are more products, apart from
I really hope SW will resist to the tentation to name the language
after himself. That would be so awkward, IMBO. And I want to stress the
Besides, I've always considered Mathematica more of a 'meta-language'
than a language itself [*]. All that was before the bells and whistles
brought on by Manipulate and the CDF format. It somehow scares me that
nowaday the Wolfram Library (again, what was wrong with "Mathsource"?
Still marketing needs, I guess) has practically no entries and all the
action is in the graphical appealing realm of "Wolfram Demonstrations".
Don't get me wrong, it's good to have a means of expressing concepts in
pictures, but... it reminds me the transition from CLI experts to
mouse-dependent /simia clicans/.
That said, I like the proposed "Tungsten". It's dense, it's heavy, it's
hard, and it brings light - the kind of light that comes from bright
ideas. It could still appease the personality (or corporation) cultors
(wolframium--->tungsten) but it won't be as awkard as having a language
named after a (living) person. After all, I don't think Miss Lovelace
would have named a language after herself.
[*] I guess "Meth" is a no-no, uh? :-)