
Re: Mathematica and Lisp
Posted:
Feb 23, 2013 11:31 PM


Hey, what a useless discussion for different items:
Mathematica is complex software which uses Lisp like language as a base system. It is useless to open a Lisp interpreter and to try to emulate Mathematica, because you need 10^10 lines of code to provide Mathematica like results.
Nobody tries to write his own Lisp modules to generate a system, that behaves like AutoCad (which uses AutoLisp...)...
So why is such a nonsense discussed here for some weeks askes
Peter
2013/2/23 David Bailey <dave@removedbailey.co.uk>: > On 22/02/2013 06:05, Richard Fateman wrote: >> >> Anyway, getting back to Mathematica and Lisp... >> Since Lisp programs tend to be short, there are fewer opportunities >> for bugs. Mathematica programs can be short too, but the irregular >> syntax makes them harder to read. See djmpark's comment about FullForm >> below. Lisp is like FullForm all the time. >> > > Yes Lisp is rather like FullForm  but who in their right mind would > write all their Mathematica code in FullForm! > > The beauty of FullForm, is that you can render an expression into this > form to resolve any misconceptions you may have about operator > precedences etc. > > Since practically nobody writes all their Mathematica code in FullForm, > it follows, does it not, that they must find Mathematica code > significantly (I would say massively) more readable than Lisp! > > David Bailey > http://www.dbaileyconsultancy.co.uk > >

