Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: simple set operations
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg57745] Re: [mg57719] Re: [mg57702] Re: [mg57693] Re: [mg57669] Re: [mg57635] simple set operations
- From: Edward Peschko <esp5 at pge.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 02:03:47 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <200506060821.EAA12535@smc.vnet.net> <NDBBJGNHKLMPLILOIPPOMEJMEIAA.email@example.com>
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 09:43:45AM -0400, David Park wrote:
> Basically this is a tough nut to crack. The best way to learn Mathematica is to have the leisure to learn it or to just force one's self to take the time. The two groups of people I have sympathy for are students who are thrown into a technical course using Mathematica without ever really learning Mathematica, and professionals who are working on a deadline and suddenly decide they need something like Mathematica to complete their project. They want answers and aren't interested in becoming Mathematica gurus. But it's an unrealistic expectation.
I don't know for others, but Mathematica is not actually that bad for me.
Perhaps its because I come from a lisp/perl/python background, but the special
symbols and what they stand for don't really bug me.
Just comparing the three systems - as far as expressiveness goes, I think that
perl has the edge, mainly because the syntax (IMO) is better thought out and
tends to rely on more primitive constructions and is more amenable to beginners,
but perl too has a bunch of special characters meaning special things which
ease learning of mathematica.
And again, as far as programmability goes, again perl/python has the
edge, because they were designed with programming in mind and have
symbolic debuggers and IDEs.
However, as far as *functionality* goes, there are some things that
you can do in mathematica which you simply can't do in either of the other
two, which is why I want to learn it.
My dream would be Mathematica written in perl6 and ported to parrot,
because the syntax is IMO more well thought out and is designed to
'learn from the mistakes' of 10 years of experience and the syntax
could probably support pretty much all of mathematica's functionality.
Plus, mathematica could then learn from *its* mistakes, and simplify
its expressions (as well as leverage off the feature set of perl5,
perl6 and python).
However, as I don't have the thousands of man-years necessary to
devote to this, I think I'll be content with what I have.. ;-)
Prev by Date:
Re: adding text to a plot erases plot?
Next by Date:
Function Fit to 3D data set
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: Re: Re: simple set operations
Next by thread:
Re: simple set operations