MathGroup Archive 2013

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Mathematica and Lisp

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg129699] Re: Mathematica and Lisp
  • From: Bill Rowe <readnews at>
  • Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 03:05:50 -0500 (EST)
  • Delivered-to:
  • Delivered-to:
  • Delivered-to:
  • Delivered-to:

On 2/3/13 at 8:22 PM, lvsaba at (Matthias Bode) wrote:

>The fact that WRI does not even "recommend the use of the Product"
>in instances where it could "threaten" ... "injury, or significant
>loss" does indeed constitute a most serious limitation to "the
>Product's" usefulness.

Why do you reach the conclusion of "serious limitation"? All
that is really happening here is Wolfram is essentially
transferring legal responsibility for problems to the user. Not
any different than is typical of software developers.

I don't think you can find any software with comparable
complexity/power to Mathematica that is bug free despite best
effort/intention of the software developer/programmer. Given
that, why would any software developer want to be held legally
responsible for damage etc caused by a bug he failed to find.

Expecting Wolfram to willingly accept legal responsibility for
damages due to bugs in Mathematica is simply unrealistic. And it
is equally unrealistic to expect a developer of any similar
software to take willingly legal responsibility for damage
caused by bugs.

  • Prev by Date: Re: SFTP
  • Next by Date: Re: Dynamic scoping
  • Previous by thread: Re: Mathematica and Lisp
  • Next by thread: Re: Mathematica and Lisp