Re: Stephen Wolfram's recent blog
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg129862] Re: Stephen Wolfram's recent blog
- From: ?iso-8859-1?Q?Ra=FAl_Mart=EDnez?= <raulmart at mac.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 01:00:26 -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
- References: <kffng1$7ji$1@smc.vnet.net> <20130218105902.CF0D668CD@smc.vnet.net>
I agree with Peltio. I have always thought of Mathematica programming as using the Mathematica language. If the programming language must have its own name, I vote for Tungsten. Regards, Ra=FAl Sent from my iPad On Feb 18, 2013, at 2:59 AM, Peltio <peltio at twilight.zone> wrote: > danl at wolfram.com ha pensato forte : > >> It raises the question of what to call the programming language of >> Mathematica. > > I've always called it (and seen it called) "Mathematica". Like in "a > small Mathematica program..." or "few lines of Mathematica code...", or > "the Mathematica programming language is..." > What's wrong with that? > > It's not marketing viable since now there are more products, apart from > Mathematica itself? > I really hope SW will resist to the tentation to name the language > after himself. That would be so awkward, IMBO. And I want to stress the > "B",here. > > Besides, I've always considered Mathematica more of a 'meta-language' > than a language itself [*]. All that was before the bells and whistles > brought on by Manipulate and the CDF format. It somehow scares me that > nowaday the Wolfram Library (again, what was wrong with "Mathsource"? > Still marketing needs, I guess) has practically no entries and all the > action is in the graphical appealing realm of "Wolfram Demonstrations". > Don't get me wrong, it's good to have a means of expressing concepts in > pictures, but... it reminds me the transition from CLI experts to > mouse-dependent /simia clicans/. > > That said, I like the proposed "Tungsten". It's dense, it's heavy, it's > hard, and it brings light - the kind of light that comes from bright > ideas. It could still appease the personality (or corporation) cultors > (wolframium--->tungsten) but it won't be as awkard as having a language > named after a (living) person. After all, I don't think Miss Lovelace > would have named a language after herself. > > Cheers, > Peltio > > [*] I guess "Meth" is a no-no, uh? :-) > > Regards, Ra=FAl Sent from my iPad On Feb 18, 2013, at 2:59 AM, Peltio <peltio at twilight.zone> wrote: > danl at wolfram.com ha pensato forte : > >> It raises the question of what to call the programming language of >> Mathematica. > > I've always called it (and seen it called) "Mathematica". Like in "a > small Mathematica program..." or "few lines of Mathematica code...", or > "the Mathematica programming language is..." > What's wrong with that? > > It's not marketing viable since now there are more products, apart from > Mathematica itself? > I really hope SW will resist to the tentation to name the language > after himself. That would be so awkward, IMBO. And I want to stress the > "B",here. > > Besides, I've always considered Mathematica more of a 'meta-language' > than a language itself [*]. All that was before the bells and whistles > brought on by Manipulate and the CDF format. It somehow scares me that > nowaday the Wolfram Library (again, what was wrong with "Mathsource"? > Still marketing needs, I guess) has practically no entries and all the > action is in the graphical appealing realm of "Wolfram Demonstrations". > Don't get me wrong, it's good to have a means of expressing concepts in > pictures, but... it reminds me the transition from CLI experts to > mouse-dependent /simia clicans/. > > That said, I like the proposed "Tungsten". It's dense, it's heavy, it's > hard, and it brings light - the kind of light that comes from bright > ideas. It could still appease the personality (or corporation) cultors > (wolframium--->tungsten) but it won't be as awkard as having a language > named after a (living) person. After all, I don't think Miss Lovelace > would have named a language after herself. > > Cheers, > Peltio > > [*] I guess "Meth" is a no-no, uh? :-) > > >
- References:
- Re: Stephen Wolfram's recent blog
- From: Peltio <peltio@twilight.zone>
- Re: Stephen Wolfram's recent blog