
Re: Mathematica and Lisp
Posted:
Jan 26, 2013 1:37 AM


On Jan 25, 2013, at 1:34 AM, Richard Fateman <fateman@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> ... > I think that perfection depends on the context. Though they are > not my areas of primary interest, I suspect the Mathematica is pretty > good for some kinds of graphics (though I find it clumsy sometimes, > that is probably my unfamiliarity with the nuances of Graphics objects), > and maybe linear cellular automata. > There seems to be a fairly strong consensus that for numerical > programming there are other competitors favored in engineering schools.
At least some of that "fairly strong consensus" may be illfounded today, after Mathematica's numerical methods have evolved.
Typically I encounter engineers and scientists who assure me that M****b is oh so much better than Mathematica, yet they have never actually tried Mathematica in a serious way or looked into efficiency comparisons. They were raised on M****b and so they're convinced it's the beall and endall for numerical work, and how dare anybody try to tell them otherwise  any evidence to the contrary be damned.
While one can compile certain functions within Mathematica, of course it's difficult for any interpreted language to compete for running efficiency with a compiled language.
 Murray Eisenberg murray@math.umass.edu Mathematics & Statistics Dept. Lederle Graduate Research Tower phone 413 5491020 (H) University of Massachusetts 413 5452838 (W) 710 North Pleasant Street fax 413 5451801 Amherst, MA 010039305

