MathGroup Archive 2005

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

Search the Archive

Re: Re: Types in Mathematica

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg62518] Re: Re: Types in Mathematica
  • From: "Steven T. Hatton" <hattons at>
  • Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 02:39:54 -0500 (EST)
  • References: <> <> <> <dm95ld$705$>
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at

Steven T. Hatton wrote:

> On Thursday 24 November 2005 17:35, Andrzej Kozlowski wrote:
>> Well, this is obviously something that can't be tested and will have
>> to remain just a matter of opinion. Personally, however, I would say
>> that to become a good Mathematica "programmer" in my sense, it is
>> better to spend the 8 years on learning subjects such as
>> computational commutative algebra, numerical analysis etc. than to
>> "waste them" on learning "the tricks of the trade" of other
>> programming languages, which are rather different form the "tricks of
>> the trade" of Mathematica.
> This relates to a long-held opinion of mine which is.  The first step to
> writing code well is to have something to say. 

There is also something to be said for not posting to usenet with low blood
caffein.  I offer my apologies for the atrocious grammar and editing in my
previous post.
The Mathematica Wiki:
Math for Comp Sci
Math for the WWW:

  • Prev by Date: Re: Making a phase plot
  • Next by Date: Re: Re: NSolve Vs. Elliptic Integral
  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: Re: Types in Mathematica
  • Next by thread: Re: Types in Mathematica