Re: Re: Types in Mathematica

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg62205] Re: [mg62203] Re: Types in Mathematica*From*: Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl>*Date*: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 04:16:04 -0500 (EST)*References*: <200511120833.DAA19252@smc.vnet.net> <43762529.7060603@math.umass.edu> <dl8s4g$n41$1@smc.vnet.net> <dl980q$r2a$1@smc.vnet.net> <200511140805.DAA00041@smc.vnet.net>*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

> >> a=1; >> >> simply means whenever you see "a", replace it with "1". That's >> all. No >> type. > > But there is IntegerQ. Yes, but f[(x_)?IntegerQ] := x^2 a /: IntegerQ[a] = True; f[a] a^2 > > One can view all symbols in Mathematica as variables in the sense of > computer science. All symbols? In what sense of symbol? How about: Head[Table] Symbol Is Table a "variable in the sense of computer science"? >> >> FORGET C++. > > Why? Just because Mathematica doesn't behave like C++, doesn't > mean there > is no value in comparing the two languages. Undoubtedly, when you are beginner in Mathematica, knowing some other programming language can be of help. I remember that early versions of the Mathematica Book included several paragraphs in the introduction, each comparing Mathematica to a (then) better known programming language: I still recall that among these languages were C, Pascal, Lisp, and even Basic. However, once you get to a more advanced level thinking about other programming languages can be more of a hindrance than help. The reason is that people coming form other programming languages tend to identify language with syntax. If they find that they can use familiar syntax they often believe they now know the language. But in the case of Mathematica the equation language = syntax does not hold. Users notice this eventually when they discover that two Mathematica programs, both written using perfectly valid syntax, and both seemingly implementing the same algorithm (note the word "seemingly") can differ in performance by several orders of magnitude (if you want to see this really convincingly demonstrated just search for some past postings by Carl Woll). If then one understands by "knowing the Mathematica language" simply knowing how write programs that run, then it is true that anyone who knows C or LISP already knows quite a bit about Mathematica programming. But if by "knowing the Mathematica language" one means "knowing how to write efficient programs" than the advice "FORGET C++." needs to be only supplemented by the advice "FORGET LISP". In spite of some deliberate similarities in syntax internally Mathematica is neither like C nor like Lisp (which I am sure RJF, who certainly knows about LISP, will be happy to confirm ;-)) In fact Mathematica isn't even a really functional language (the only real functional aspect of Mathematica are pure functions like Function [x,x^2] or #^2&). the language is obviously a hybrid, with certain unique characteristics. For me this "hybrid" nature is one of the best things about the language but I am aware that there are some who have the opposite view on this. But I think everybody who has been following this list for a few month would would agree that to write an efficient Mathematica program knowing other languages is of very little help. Andrzej Kozlowski

**References**:**Types in Mathematica***From:*"Steven T. Hatton" <hattons@globalsymmetry.com>

**Re: Types in Mathematica***From:*"Steven T. Hatton" <hattons@globalsymmetry.com>

**Re: Re: Re: Timing runs for the last part of my previouspost**

**Re: Absolute value of a symbolic complex expression**

**Re: Types in Mathematica**

**Re: Types in Mathematica**