Re: Re: Mathematica to .NET compiler
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg79571] Re: [mg79530] Re: Mathematica to .NET compiler
- From: DrMajorBob <drmajorbob at bigfoot.com>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 05:21:50 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <200707200725.DAA24728@smc.vnet.net> <f7sflm$rs0$1@smc.vnet.net> <f86onh$g19$1@smc.vnet.net> <f89p6l$54l$1@smc.vnet.net> <12189822.1185457140095.JavaMail.root@m35> <f8cgc0$3pf$1@smc.vnet.net> <23931429.1185618324559.JavaMail.root@m35>
- Reply-to: drmajorbob at bigfoot.com
> But I can't imagine any fast possibility without strong binding of
> variables to types. And you do not like it, if I remember an other
> posting of you correctly.
IMHO:
Speed in a language or compiler decreases in importance according to
Moore's law, while the importance of flexibility and a short development
cycle increases to fill the vacuum thus created (and more). When
programmer productivity is properly considered, Mathematica's
pattern-matching will, over the long haul, be far more useful than another
language's strong typing.
Bobby
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:42:24 -0500, Peter Pein <petsie at dordos.net> wrote:
> DrMajorBob schrieb:
>>
>> Ah, this wouldn't be that company with the unexplained crashes, viruses,
>> spontaneously corrupted and ever-increasing trash-dump registries,
>> infinitely recurring updates, new versions that won't install on
>> 3-yr-old
>> machines, the most intrusive "browser" on the planet, and...
>>
>> Not THAT company?
>>
>> I'll stick to Mathematica, thanks.
>>
>> Bobby
>>
>
> Uhh! I feel negative vibrations. ;-)
>
> I shortly left the OS of THAT company on a small partition of my disk to
> play some games, I've been used to play and I'm not sure if I tend to
> ubuntu or fedora linux (preference goes to ubuntu). Exaggerated: I feel
> better, if I _want_ to upgrade my OS every six months than if I'm forced
> to reinstall it every six weeks.
>
> There are possibilities far from THAT company that would make it
> interesting to start such a project. And I will try as sonn as I'm
> familar with some of the set {Haskell, OCaml, Mercury, and maybe others}.
> And this will be in a not so near future. Learning a new topic isn't as
> easy as it used to be twenty years ago :-(
>
> But I can't imagine any fast possibility without strong binding of
> variables to types. And you do not like it, if I remember an other
> posting of you correctly.
>
> Regards,
> Peter
>
>
--
DrMajorBob at bigfoot.com
- References:
- Mathematica to .NET compiler
- From: Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com>
- Mathematica to .NET compiler