Re: Language vs. Library
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg61325] Re: Language vs. Library
- From: "Steven T. Hatton" <hattons at globalsymmetry.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:23:46 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <dii8o0$9cc$1@smc.vnet.net> <200510130539.BAA04590@smc.vnet.net> <dio0cl$scl$1@smc.vnet.net>
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Sseziwa Mukasa wrote: > I am not sure what is supposed to be demonstrated here. I was trying to show that there are tricky aspects of Mathematica which can only be understood by understanding how Mathematica works at the basic level. A level that really doesn't involve mathematics, per se. The first example is something I discovered the hard way. The second was an example of something I realized while I was reading chapter 2 of The Mathematica Book. It's interesting that learning C++ well has greatly helped with my understanding of Mathematica. I tried reading the sections on pattern matching a little over a year ago, and it didn't make a lot of sense to me. Now it seems easy. That is not to say I have become an expert. -- "Philosophy is written in this grand book, The Universe. ... But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language... in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, ...; without which wanders about in a dark labyrinth." The Lion of Gaul
- References:
- Re: Re: Language vs. Library
- From: "Steven T. Hatton" <hattons@globalsymmetry.com>
- Re: Re: Language vs. Library