Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums
MathGroup Archive
*Archive Index
*Ask about this page
*Print this page
*Give us feedback
*Sign up for the Wolfram Insider

MathGroup Archive 2006

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

Search the Archive

Re: Re: General--Difficulties in Understanding Mathematica Syntax

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg69068] Re: [mg69006] Re: General--Difficulties in Understanding Mathematica Syntax
  • From: János <janos.lobb at>
  • Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 03:26:06 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <echdk4$oir$> <ecmgpr$9b3$> <>
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at

On Aug 26, 2006, at 2:04 AM, AES wrote:

> In article <ecmgpr$9b3$1 at>,
>  Jean-Marc Gulliet <jeanmarc.gulliet at> wrote:
>> Now, it is utterly better to use high-level constructs such as Map,
>> Thread, Apply, ... when you code in Mathematica.
> I don't exactly quarrel with this -- but I sure don't fully accept it
> either.
> Concepts like Map[ ], Thread[ ], Apply[ ] are thoroughly understood by
> adepts, and marginally understood by some of the rest of us.  They're
> not concepts, or terms, commonly used in everyday speech.  And they  
> may
> have some hidden subtleties in their operation, even some  
> "gotchas", in
> how they apply to what's inside the [ ]s.
> Constructs like Do[] , If[ ], While[ ] are fairly likely to be
> understood not just by adepts, but by anyone who's ever done even very
> elementary programming in (horrors!) BASIC.  Their programming use
> matches up pretty well with the same terms in everyday speech.  They
> make the flow of the program logic more obviously visible (at least to
> us non-adepts).  And I suspect they have fewer hidden gotchas.
> Writing complex Mathematica expressions as dense, deeply nested,
> sometimes lengthy expressions full of arcane shorthands ("\\@",  
> etc) is
> akin to writing dense, arcane, possible lengthy prose sentences  
> full of
> arcane terminology.  Writing them as short, crisp, clear  
> constructs, one
> task at a time, is like writing short, crisp, clear prose sentences.
> The people who construct "readability indexes" for prose have some
> opinions about this.
> [We all, of course, fondly remember APL:  "Code once, read or modify
> never".]
> What is it that's actually **better** (for the "ordinaryt user") about
> these more sophisticated constructs?
> *  Readability? -- except for adepts, I don't think so.
> *  Faster, more efficient execution? -- perhaps so, but in the vast
> majority of cases, who cares?!?
> *  More accurate execution?  -- I sure hope not.
> *  Shorter code (fewer characters)? -- again, who cares?!?
> *  Bragging rights (I can accomplish the task with fewer characters  
> than
> anyone around)? -- Well, that was a very salable skill, in magnetic  
> core
> and assembly language days.
> Again, to each his own.  Part of the genius of Mathematica is that it
> serves the novice user and the sophisticated adept.  But "better"?

Newbie comment :)

- It took me to get used to Map about as much time that it took me to  
get used to LET in Algol 60 :)

- For me better usually means how efficient the programming structure  
is when I try to scale.  For data elements of a few hundred almost  
every construct works, but when I scale up to a few hundred thousand  
or million data elements, then functional constructs proved to be  
much BETTER.


Trying to argue with a politician is like lifting up the head of a  
(S. Lem: His Master Voice)

  • Prev by Date: one-dimensional and two-dimensional convolution
  • Next by Date: Re: high dpi expressions aren't allowed to be exported correctly - got a workaround?
  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: General--Difficulties in Understanding Mathematica Syntax
  • Next by thread: Re: General--Difficulties in Understanding Mathematica Syntax