Re: Mathematica and Lisp

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg129749] Re: Mathematica and Lisp*From*: Bill Rowe <readnews at sbcglobal.net>*Date*: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 03:25:14 -0500 (EST)*Delivered-to*: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com*Delivered-to*: l-mathgroup@wolfram.com*Delivered-to*: mathgroup-newout@smc.vnet.net*Delivered-to*: mathgroup-newsend@smc.vnet.net

On 2/9/13 at 12:45 AM, lvsaba at hotmail.com (Matthias Bode) wrote: >"There is nothing that cannot be done in assembler that can be done >in Mathematica." >Upon inspection of the code of "A small program that calculates and >prints terms of the Fibonacci series" >http://www.assembly.happycodings.com/code1.html >I have been led to surmise that using Mathematica might have some >slight advantages over the assembler approach. Since one line Mathematica code, specifically, Table[Fibonacci[n],{n,15000}] outputs the same result as the several lines of assembly code the URL you posted links to, it seems to me the advantage of Mathematica over assembly is clear. Can Mathematica take the place of other coding tools? In principle, yes. But while Mathematica could be used to take the place of other coding tools, that doesn't mean Mathematica should be used in place of other coding tools. I could use a large screwdriver to pound in small nails instead of using a hammer even though using a hammer would be far more efficient/effective. Similarly, some coding tasks/problems are addressed far more efficiently/effectively with tools other than Mathematica.