Re: Mma language
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg6795] Re: Mma language
- From: daiyanh at mindspring.com (Daitaro Hagihara)
- Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 01:50:34 -0400 (EDT)
- Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Hi Xah, Just comments. Both Mma and Lisp follow the concept of unified data and function as described by Church/Turing. The former taking the functional approach, and the latter the data approach. Clearly there are some areas that Mma handles but Lisp can't, and vice versa. I wish I could have not just the best of both worlds, but instead a superset of both. And I'm not naively asking for it. BTW, your Mma site is super! Daitaro Hagihara In article <5iv9l3$nsl at smc.vnet.net>, Xah Lee <xah at best.com> wrote: > The mma programing language is such consistently designed beauty that most > of us have come to love. My question is, why isn't there a language with > similar syntatic facilities like mma? I do not know any lisp family, but > from my readings that I think that even lisp do not compare to mma in > elegance. Please correct me if I'm wrong. > > I'm learning Java. I cannot help glowering that its syntax is without any > perceptible unifying structure. Exceptions abound on many different levels. > Its syntax is a screw up just like C and many other languages. > > I don't have any studies in computer science. Any comments welcome. > > Xah > xah at best.com > http://www.best.com/~xah/SpecialPlaneCurves_dir/specialPlaneCurves.html > Mountain View, CA, USA