MathGroup Archive 2002

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Not quite a Swell FLOOP?

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg37433] Re: [mg37430] Not quite a Swell FLOOP?
  • From: Andrzej Kozlowski <andrzej at>
  • Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 00:09:32 -0500 (EST)
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at

Roman Maeder's package is meant for teaching computer science not for 
general use. Whether Mathematica would benefit from OO functionality 
has been a matter of some very heated debate, which you can find in 
this groups archives.
Personally I am somewhere in the middle on this. I think it would be 
useful for developing packages for some very highly structured areas of 
mathematics (e.g. Algebraic Geometry). But for most applications in 
mathematics and physics the mixture of pattern based and functional 
programming offered by Mathematica is close to ideal and an additional 
programming paradigm would just get in the way. I don't think we need 
built in support for OOP in Mathematica but I am sure many would 
welcome a good AddOn package.

Andrzej Kozlowski
Yokohama, Japan

On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 05:40 PM, Steven T. Hatton wrote:

> I must admit, Mathematica looks a lot different to me after having 
> done some
> real programming in Java, than it did a few years ago.  I understand 
> it much
> better, but I also find myself grasping for things that don't seem to 
> be
> native to the product/language.
> There seems to be virtually no native support for OOP in Mathematica. 
> Am I
> understanding things correctly?  Dr. M¡î¡×der (I'm being a bit stubborn 
> here -
> use UTF-8) provides his own object package with his Computer Science 
> with
> Mathematica.  I haven't worked with yet, but by looking it over, it 
> seems a
> bit kluged ( 
> ).  I don't mean to upbraid Dr. M¡î¡×der's attempt to add functionality 
> which
> probably should be a native part of the Mathematica language.  Perhaps 
> I'll
> get used to the approach he has used, but for now, I must say, it seems
> awkward.  My guess is Dr. M¡î¡×der did the best that could be expected 
> with the
> constraints under which he was working.
> It is inconceivable to me that I am the first person to question the 
> lack of
> native OO support in Mathematica.  There must be a history of 
> discussion on
> this topic.  Is anybody aware of a record of such?  Am I not 
> understanding
> things correctly?  Do others believe OO support is lacking in 
> Mathematica,
> and really 'should' be here?
> -- 
> Hatton's Law:
> "There is only One inviolable Law."

  • Prev by Date: Re: Re: Crash problems with 4.2 FrontEnd
  • Next by Date: Combination/Permutation questions
  • Previous by thread: Not quite a Swell FLOOP?
  • Next by thread: Re: Not quite a Swell FLOOP?