Date: Feb 19, 2013 1:09 AM
Author: Raul Martinez
Subject: Re: Stephen Wolfram's recent blog


I agree with Peltio. I have always thought of Mathematica programming as
using the Mathematica language. If the programming language must have
its own name, I vote for Tungsten.

Regards,

Ra=FAl

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 18, 2013, at 2:59 AM, Peltio <peltio@twilight.zone> wrote:

> danl@wolfram.com ha pensato forte :
>

>> It raises the question of what to call the programming language of
>> Mathematica.

>
> 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
> Mathematica itself?
> 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
> "B",here.
>
> 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Peltio
>
> [*] I guess "Meth" is a no-no, uh? :-)
>
>

Regards,

Ra=FAl

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 18, 2013, at 2:59 AM, Peltio <peltio@twilight.zone> wrote:

> danl@wolfram.com ha pensato forte :
>

>> It raises the question of what to call the programming language of
>> Mathematica.

>
> 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
> Mathematica itself?
> 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
> "B",here.
>
> 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Peltio
>
> [*] I guess "Meth" is a no-no, uh? :-)
>
>
>