Re: Stephen Wolfram's recent blog
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg129865] Re: Stephen Wolfram's recent blog
- From: Vince Virgilio <blueschi at gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:51:54 -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$1@smc.vnet.net> <kft1kd$cqb$1@smc.vnet.net> <kfv4v5$3fv$1@smc.vnet.net>
On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:09:41 AM UTC-5, John Doty wrote: > On Monday, February 18, 2013 4:00:29 AM UTC-7, Vince Virgilio wrote: > > > > > The Mathematica "language" is roughly the Abstract Syntax Tree mechanics that most > > > compilers use internally. It can indeed be separated from the leaves or terminals of the > > > syntax tree, where most of WRI's intellectual property lives---the algorithms. > > > > Ah, but there's another layer that's essential: pattern matching and replacement. Without that, the syntax is meaningless. Mathematica isn't like a language that gets compiled to machine language or pseudocode. Maybe. I'm no expert. But I think conventional compilers have to do things internally very similar to what Mathematica exposes as pattern matching and replacement. That might have been a big component of Stephen Wolfram's genius in promoting the language. Less is More --- at a cost. Vince