Re: Mathematica to .NET compiler
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg79391] Re: Mathematica to .NET compiler
- From: David Bailey <dave at Remove_Thisdbailey.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 05:20:20 -0400 (EDT)
- Organization: Customer of PlusNet plc (http://www.plus.net)
- References: <200707200725.DAA24728@smc.vnet.net> <f7sflm$rs0$1@smc.vnet.net> <f86onh$g19$1@smc.vnet.net>
Jon Harrop wrote: > David Annetts wrote: >> What would be the advantages of such a compiler over (say) MathF90 (or >> MathC++ if you're so inclined) at http://www.mathcore.com/ ? > > The MathCore guys kindly sent me a link to the document describing the > subset that they support: > > http://www.mathcore.com/resources/documents/mathcodec++_subset.pdf > > They don't support: > > Pattern matching > Arbitrary-precision arithmetic > Symbolic manipulation > Negative array indexing > Strings > IO > Efficient array resizing > Expressions > > Most of these are easy to implement if you target a higher-level language > than C++. > Surely to support all those features you would need to write something equivalent to a fair portion of the Mathematica kernel - why would your code work any faster than Wolfram's? I can't see how something like expr /. f[a_]->a^2 can usefully be compiled if you don't know the structure of the expression at compile time (which you usually don't). As far as I can see, all you could compile that into would be a call to your pattern matching library code! Am I missing something here? David Bailey http://www.dbaileyconsultancy.co.uk
- References:
- Mathematica to .NET compiler
- From: Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com>
- Mathematica to .NET compiler