Remix.run Logo
the__alchemist 4 hours ago

I love Rust for mathematical and scientific tasks (I am building the structural bio crate infrastructure), and I love Mathematica and have a personal sub. I should be the audience, but... What makes Mathematica great, IMO, is the polish and overall experience created by consistent work with applications in mind over decades. So, I look at this project with skepticism regarding its utility.

adius 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sure, but you've got to start somewhere! And with the amount of progress I was able to make in just a few weeks, I'm very optimistic that the polish will come sooner rather than later.

the__alchemist 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Based on the list of contributors to your project, I am not sure this starting location is optimally suited to the task of building a foundation for polished, reliable, expandable software.

adampunk an hour ago | parent | next [-]

In that case I kindly refer you to the matter of Arkell v. Pressdam.

adius 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's having ~ 5000 tests already. Used correctly, AI agents can help you improve the quality of the code!

the__alchemist 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Do you see why this perspective is a red flag on its own?

ComplexSystems 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I certainly don't. If a software developer has found a way to use these tools that works well for them and produces good results, that's a good thing.

mountainriver 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No I don’t, review your code

supriyo-biswas 3 hours ago | parent [-]

If I go by the contributor numbers on Github, I see Claude has committed something on the order of 300,000 lines of code. I don't think it's reasonable to review that much code, even in weeks worth of time.

copperx 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

God help us.

s3p 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The sneering on HN really has no end. This is a good project! I for one am very excited to see an interpreter born out of rust.

Keyframe 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's a defense mechanism. I was guilty as charge as well initially. Suddenly most of your l33t skillz are trivialized and surpassed by an inhumane actor. It's a tough pill to swallow.

mountainriver 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It’s so obnoxious

jjtheblunt an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

i'm curious if you intend to reimplement highly optimized numerical algorithms, symbolic algorithms, and so on, accumulated and tuned in mathematica since its 1988 release?

it's a huuuuuuuuge amount of technology in the standard library of mathematica, beyond the surface syntax and rewrite system, i mean.

rustyhancock 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Similarly I'm not sure Octave ever really got that polish to compete with MATLAB.

SPSS is hilariously painful to use. Still it's only losing ground ever so slowly. PSPP remains almost unheard of among SPSS core users.

3eb7988a1663 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I am not sure Octave ever had to put on that much polish. It just had to be decent enough to save $$$$ vs a Matlab license. If it can drop-in run the code that has been keeping the lab going for decades, good enough.

gmueckl 2 hours ago | parent [-]

MathWorks offers a huge list of "toolboxes", domain specific extensions that cover a lot of features in each domain. Replacing Matlab isn't about the core language alone.

tstenner 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Which often means that e.g. loading an image for displaying it increases cost by a few thousands

drnick1 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Half-assed reimplementations of existing software (often in the name of "memory safety") is what the Rust community is best known for.

the__alchemist 22 minutes ago | parent [-]

I find rust to be the best language and tool set in most categories. I still agree with this characterization.

amelius 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, the Mathematica language is the least interesting aspect of the Mathematica system. Closely followed by the interactive notebooks.

stared 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The notebooks were THE thing of Mathematica, at least to me. 12 years ago, as I was finishing my PhD in quantum optics, I wanted to migrate to the stack used in industry - and picked Python. Also, that way I was an early adopter of Jupyter Notebook, as it captured what was need + was open.

Now Mathematica notebooks (still remember, it is .nb) do not have the novelty factor. But they were the first to set a trend, which we now take for granted.

That said, I rarely use notebooks anymore. In the coding time, it is much easier to create scripts and ask to create a visualization in HTML.

abdullahkhalids 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Closely followed by the interactive notebooks.

Mathematica's notebooks are the only environment where I can do some computation to arrive at a symbolic expression. Copy the expression from the output cell into a new input cell. Then manipulate it by hand into the form I want. Then continue processing it further.

Also, symbolic expressions can be written nicely with actual superscripts and subscripts, and with non-latin characters.

One of the best features of Mathematica system.

lejalv a few seconds ago | parent [-]

Have a look at TeXmacs! (https://texmacs.org)

(AFAIK, you can run Mathematica sessions in TeXmacs, get proper typesetting, and can copy/paste expressions for simplification by hand or using other CAS sessions in the same TeXmacs document).

aeonik 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I disagree, the language itself is one of the more elegant parts of the system, and enables a lot of the rest of the elegance.

From a purely programming language theory, it's pretty unique.

I once tried to find a language that had all the same properties, and I failed. The Factor language is probably the closest. But they are still pretty different.

zozbot234 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The relevant programming paradigm is string/term rewriting, which is featured in other programming languages such as Pure. It seems to have few direct applications outside of symbolic computing itself, compilers and related fields such as PL theory. (Formal calculi and languages are often specified in PL theory as rewrite rules, even though the practical implementation may ultimately differ.)

s3p 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

First I believe there is no such thing as the Mathematica language, it's Wolframscript which is useful in a bunch of different applications. And second, if you don't have access to a $1000 / yr wolfram subscription, this would be the next best thing.

adius 3 hours ago | parent [-]

They rebranded it to Wolfram Language a few years ago (which I actually appreciate, as it is so much more than just "math" by now!)

https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2013/02/what-should-we-c...