MathGroup Archive 2007

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

Search the Archive

Re: Re: Mathematica to .NET compiler

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg79572] Re: [mg79542] Re: Mathematica to .NET compiler
  • From: DrMajorBob <drmajorbob at bigfoot.com>
  • Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 05:22:21 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <200707200725.DAA24728@smc.vnet.net> <f7sflm$rs0$1@smc.vnet.net> <f86onh$g19$1@smc.vnet.net> <f8f40s$s5$1@smc.vnet.net> <32869149.1185684831774.JavaMail.root@m35>
  • Reply-to: drmajorbob at bigfoot.com

> Yes. I think this is an excellent idea. I would welcome a Mathematica
> compiler that let you create stand-alone executables from your  
> Mathematica
> source code.

Wouldn't such a stand-alone executable be, potentially, as large as  
Mathematica itself? (Or even larger?) Compiling just ONE line of code  
could require binding in the many constituents of DSolve and the  
facilities on which it depends, for instance. It doesn't seem practical,  
even in theory.

Bobby

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 23:04:14 -0500, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com>  
wrote:

> Peter Pein wrote:
>> I think it would be more promising to build a tool which translates
>> Mathematica to a declarative language and to build a hybrid, running
>> easy-to-translate parts in native code and calling the Mathematica
>> Kernel for hard tasks.
>
> Yes. I think this is an excellent idea. I would welcome a Mathematica
> compiler that let you create stand-alone executables from your  
> Mathematica
> source code. I think it would greatly broaden Mathematica's  
> applicability.
>
>> While learning the basics, I came around to Haskell, OCAML and of course
>> Prolog. My knowledge about these languages is too small for now but I
>> think in a year or one and a half I'll try to find some people to start
>> such a project...
>
> You may be interested in the tutorial information on our site. Also, I
> recently updated our ray tracer language comparison to include Haskell:
>
>   http://www.ffconsultancy.com/languages/ray_tracer/
>
> There was a huge gap between languages like Mathematica and C++/Fortran.  
> I
> think Haskell and OCaml do an excellent job of filling this gap.
>



-- 
DrMajorBob at bigfoot.com


  • Prev by Date: Re: Mathematica can make a software???
  • Next by Date: Re: Re: Mathematica to .NET compiler
  • Previous by thread: Re: Mathematica to .NET compiler
  • Next by thread: Re: Re: Mathematica to .NET compiler