Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Mathematica and Lisp
Replies: 83   Last Post: Mar 5, 2013 10:12 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Richard Fateman Posts: 1,539 Registered: 12/7/04
Re: Mathematica and Lisp
Posted: Mar 3, 2013 2:21 AM

On 3/2/2013 12:44 AM, Bill Rowe wrote:
...

<snip>
I mostly agree with you!

>
> I agree Mathematica is different in a great many ways. And I can
> see how someone experienced in say C or another language would
> see Mathematica as strange and unusual. But I really don't see
> the problem of understanding Mathematica symbols, precedence
> etc. as being any different than learning pointers are other
> aspects of C. It is simply a matter of study and using
> Mathematica just as it is a case of study and using C to learn
> pointers etc.
>

C is not my favorite programming language .. see
www.cs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/papers/software.pdf

Nevertheless one can almost argue that if you know about
how computers work on the assembly language level you have
a modest chance of mapping C constructs to assembler-like

For EF, the number of unfamiliar operators and the
number of distinct precedences is substantial.

There is a table in the virtual book documentation "operation precedence"
in the section Operator Input Forms.

There are roughly
69 different precedence categories listed.

In some precedence classes there are many forms.
For example in the category 4th from the bottom there are these
operators which, being in the same class, would be parsed from
left to right (or is it right to left?) anyway, here they are.

=, :=, ^=, ^:=, =. ->,
and also the matchfix
/: =
/: :=

While some of the operators have no built-in meaning, and some are
pretty obscure, they are all part of the syntax. There are also quite
a few multi-character operators, some of which are new to me.. @@@ ?

This is an attempt to document one of reasons I think EF is NOT just
as easy to learn as any other language. I've previous mentioned other
reasons which can be grouped generally under the category "semantics".

RJF

>

Date Subject Author
1/11/13 amzoti
1/12/13 Richard Fateman
1/12/13 David Bailey
1/14/13 Richard Fateman
1/14/13 David Bailey
1/16/13 Richard Fateman
1/18/13 David Bailey
1/22/13 Richard Fateman
1/22/13 David Bailey
1/24/13 Richard Fateman
1/25/13 Richard Fateman
1/26/13 Murray Eisenberg
1/26/13 Murray Eisenberg
1/26/13 W. Craig Carter
1/16/13 Murray Eisenberg
1/16/13 Richard Fateman
1/16/13 David Bailey
1/18/13 Murray Eisenberg
1/31/13 Noqsi
2/2/13 Daniel Lichtblau
2/3/13 Richard Fateman
2/2/13 Richard Fateman
2/3/13 David Bailey
2/5/13 Richard Fateman
2/6/13 David Bailey
2/6/13 Richard Fateman
2/3/13 Andrzej Kozlowski
2/5/13 Richard Fateman
2/6/13 David Bailey
2/5/13 Bill Rowe
2/6/13 Joseph Gwinn
2/3/13 Matthias Bode
2/3/13 Noqsi
2/6/13 Richard Fateman
2/6/13 David Bailey
2/6/13 mathgroup
2/4/13 Alex Krasnov
2/6/13 Noqsi
2/8/13 Richard Fateman
2/9/13 János Löbb
2/9/13 Richard Fateman
2/10/13 michael
2/10/13 Bill Rowe
2/8/13 Andrzej Kozlowski
2/8/13 Noqsi
2/9/13 Richard Fateman
2/10/13 David Bailey
2/9/13 Matthias Bode
2/15/13 Noqsi
2/17/13 David Bailey
2/18/13 Joseph Gwinn
2/18/13 David Park
2/22/13 Richard Fateman
2/23/13 David Bailey
2/23/13 Richard Fateman
2/25/13 David Bailey
2/26/13 Richard Fateman
2/27/13 Bill Rowe
2/27/13 Richard Fateman
3/2/13 Bill Rowe
3/3/13 Richard Fateman
3/3/13 Noqsi
3/5/13 Richard Fateman
3/5/13 Vince Virgilio
3/3/13 Bob Hanlon
1/16/13 Noqsi
1/16/13 Richard Fateman
1/18/13 Noqsi
2/23/13 Dr. Peter Klamser
2/25/13 Richard Fateman
2/26/13 Noqsi