| ▲ | ktpsns 7 hours ago |
| The power of the language came from the concise syntax (I liked it more then classical LISPs) with the huge library of Mathematica. When Python is "batteries included", Mathematica is "spaceship included". If this was open sourced, it had the potential to severely change the software/IT industry. As an expensive proprietary software however, it is deemed to stay a niche product mainly for academia. |
|
| ▲ | pjmlp 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| As discussed on another thread, the outcome is poorly tools glued together, due to lack of roadmap and polish that commercial software usually supports, instead of volunteers coming and going, only caring for their little ich. |
| |
| ▲ | wasmainiac 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I’m not sure about that. I used to use LabView and its various libraries often. The whole thing felt scattered and ossified. I’d take a python standard library any day. | | |
| ▲ | pjmlp 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yet most EE engineers rather use a graphical tool like LabView or Simulink. Not everyone is keen doing scripting from command line with vi. | | |
| ▲ | sallveburrpi 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Maybe it’s different for those actually working in the profession and n=1 but in my (many) years of studying EE I never used these tools even once. |
|
| |
| ▲ | zozbot234 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | To be fair, "sundry tools poorly glued together" describes CAS and symbolic computation software in general, including Maple or Mathematica. It's surprisingly difficult to put a proper formal foundation (guaranteeing the absence of "wrong" or even outright meaningless results) even on very basic symbolic manipulations. | |
| ▲ | scotty79 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Commercial software polish is lipstick on a pig. A pig that will never be anything else and will eventually die as a pig. Ugly os software at least has potential to grow internally. Long lived commercial software is a totting carcass with fresh coat of paint every now and then. | | |
| ▲ | pjmlp 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yet, the Year of XYZ software seldom comes, the usual cheering of tools like Blender, often forgets its origin as commercial product and existing userbase. Someone has to pay the bills for development effort, and when it based on volunteer work, it is mostly followers and not innovators. | | |
| ▲ | scotty79 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | There's nothing wrong with commercial software being the origin. What's a crime is that it can stay commercial. Source code should enter public domain in a decade at most. | | |
| ▲ | aleph_minus_one 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > What's a crime is that it can stay commercial. Source code should enter public domain in a decade at most. In many cases, people are free to write their own implementation. Your claim "Source code should enter public domain in a decade at most." means that every software vendor shall be obliged after some time to hand out their source code, which is something very strong to ask for. What is the true crime are the laws that in some cases make such an own implementation illegal (software patents, probitions of reverse-engineering, ...). | | |
| ▲ | scotty79 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > every software vendor shall be obliged after some time to hand out their source code, Obviously. Since software is as much vital to the modern world as water, making people who deal with it disclose implementation details is a very small ask. Access to the market is not a right but a privilege. If you want to sell things we can demand things of you. | | |
| ▲ | simonh 43 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I think commerce between individuals is a right. Infringing on that should be justified in terms of protecting the rights of those involved, such as ensuring the quality of goods, enforcement of reasonable contract terms and such. We are involved in the process as participants in the market, and that’s the basis of any legitimacy we have to impose any rules in the market. That includes an obligation to fair treatment of other participants. If someone writes notes, procedures, a diary, software etc for their own use they are under no obligation to publish it, ever. That’s basic privacy protection. Whether an executable was written from scratch in an assembler or is compiled from high level source code isn’t anyone else’s business. It should meet quality standards for commercial transactions and that’s it. There’s no more obligation to publish source than there is to publish design documents, early versions, or unpublished material. That would be an overreaching invasion of privacy. | | | |
| ▲ | dataflow 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Obviously. Since software is as much vital to the modern world as water, making people who deal with it disclose implementation details is a very small ask. The analogy would be ever-so-slightly more accurate if you said "software is as much vital to the modern world as beverages". It would also be more accurate if all water was free. Neither of which is the case. | |
| ▲ | esafak an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | You must design your own hardware too, since you can't get the blueprints of commercial products. |
|
| |
| ▲ | pjmlp an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not everyone buys into FOSS religion, especially when there are bills to pay, and too many people feeling entitled to leech on work of others and being paid themselves, or companies for that matter. |
|
| |
| ▲ | DonHopkins 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Worse than lipstick on a pig is lipstick all the way down, with no pork, like the user interfaces coming out of Apple. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | kingkongjaffa 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > If this was open sourced, it had the potential to severely change the software/IT industry. As an engineering undergrad I had a similar feeling about Matlab & Mathematica. Matlab especially had 'tool boxes' that you bought as add-ons to do specific engineering calcs and simulations and it was great, but I almost always found myself recreating things in python just because it felt slightly more sane to handle data and glue code. Pandas and Matplotlib and SciPy all used via an ipython notebook were almost a replacement. |
|
| ▲ | escanda 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Actually, Wolfram Language is based on Tiny Caml. M-expression based though. Lisps are neat and cosy too. |
|
| ▲ | themafia 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > As an expensive proprietary software however It's $195/year for a personal license. And only $75/year for students. Their licensing model is pretty broad. |
| |
| ▲ | dataflow 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | While I'm not sure the particular price point is the biggest problem here, the student license pricing doesn't feel seem that great either. The language is hard enough to learn, and most students won't have time to figure out if they want to buy it with a 15-day trial. They'd probably need half a semester at the very least, unless it's a required part of the curriculum. In the rare case where a student is already familiar enough to know they want it, then four years of $75/year is $300... at that point they may as well just pay $390 for a perpetual personal license, so they can at least keep opening their files in the future. That said, the parent was talking about it being expensive for use in industry. Personal and student licenses aren't relevant there. | |
| ▲ | bborud 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Well, that doesn't sound too bad. But this is a high enough barrier for Mathematica to not see wide spread use. I don't remember what the pricing has been throughout the years. But I do remember that for some of the time I couldn't really afford Mathematica. And the license I wanted was also a bit too expensive to justify for a piece of software that only I would be using within an organization. Because it is also about enough other people around you not being able to justify the expense. And about companies not wanting to pay a lot of money for licenses so they can lock their computations into an ecosystem that is very small. Mathematica is, in the computing world, pretty irrelevant. And I'm being generous when I say "pretty": I have never encountered it in any job or even in academia. People know of it. They just don't use it for work. It would have been nice if the language and the runtime had been open source. But Wolfram didn't want to go in that direction. That's a perfectly fine choice to make. But it does mean that as a language, Mathematica will never be important. Nor will knowing how to program in it be a marketable skill. (To Stephen Wolfram it really doesn't matter. He obviously makes a good living. I'm not sure I'd bother with the noise and stress coming from open sourcing something) | | |
| ▲ | aleph_minus_one 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > And I'm being generous when I say "pretty": I have never encountered it in any job or even in academia. People know of it. They just don't use it for work. To my knowledge, at least in academia, Wolfram (Mathematica) seems to be used quite a bit by physicists. Also in some areas of mathematics it is used (but many mathematicians seems to prefer Maple). Concerning mathematical research, I want to mention that by now also some open-source (and often more specialized) CASs seem to have become more widespread, such as SageMath, SymPy, Macaulay2, GP/PARI or GAP. | | |
| ▲ | jjgreen 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | In Maple sin(x) is "sin(x)", in Mathematica it's "Sin[x]", ewww | | |
| ▲ | pmkary 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I actually loved this idea so much that every language I make, I try to do the same. The point of it is that typing ( requires shift, while [ does not. And you have no idea when you have tunnel syndrome, how much it hurts each time you write a (. While it’s ugly, the hand thanks you for it. | | | |
| ▲ | aleph_minus_one 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In my opinion, Wolfram/Mathematica is more consistent internally, while Maple is more consistent with the usual mathematical notation. | | |
| ▲ | DonHopkins 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > while Maple is more consistent with the usual mathematical notation I can't tell if you're saying that as if it's a good thing, or a bad thing. | | |
| ▲ | aleph_minus_one 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's not about good nor bad, but about the different trade-offs that these two CASs made. What is more important for you is something that you can only answer for yourself. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | andrewaylett 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I definitely get the impression that Wolfram builds his tools primarily for himself, and is happy to let other people play with them because that way he gets money to pay for them. | | |
| ▲ | pmkary 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | That is not the impression, that is exactly why, And actually that is their strength. Back in the days the whole Apple was there to make software for Jobs and look how awesome that turned out. Wolfram is trying to complete tue work of Leibniz and create a universal calculus. A unifying language for symbolic computation, which is amazing. |
|
| |
| ▲ | zorked 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It still creates a class of haves and have-nots which prevents forming a community. Plus you buy a version of it, and then someone else is on another version, and you don't have the same features, and the tiny community is fragmented. | |
| ▲ | jazzyjackson an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's also free on raspberry pi | |
| ▲ | jwrallie 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’d like to use it sporadically, but they charge a lot for people in academia, and for my use case it’s simply not worth it. I’m using xcas now, it’s working pretty well for my humble needs. |
|
|
| ▲ | hebejebelus 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| That's exactly the same analogy I used to use, although I said "nuclear reactor included" - spaceship is better, it implies less danger and more expanded horizons! |