MathGroup Archive 2013

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

Search the Archive

Re: Mathematica and Lisp

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg129892] Re: Mathematica and Lisp
  • From: David Bailey <dave at>
  • Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:02:26 -0500 (EST)
  • Delivered-to:
  • Delivered-to:
  • Delivered-to:
  • Delivered-to:
  • References: <kcqkv4$lq5$> <kct7fj$sgo$> <kfkm72$j97$> <24729974.35095.1361092362942.JavaMail.root@m06> <kft1l8$cqr$> <kg71s0$4mo$>

On 22/02/2013 06:05, Richard Fateman wrote:
> Anyway, getting back to Mathematica and Lisp...
> Since Lisp programs tend to be short, there are fewer opportunities
> for bugs.  Mathematica programs can be short too, but the irregular
> syntax makes them harder to read. See djmpark's comment about FullForm
> below.  Lisp is like FullForm all the time.

Yes Lisp is rather like FullForm - but who in their right mind would 
write all their Mathematica code in FullForm!

The beauty of FullForm, is that you can render an expression into this 
form to resolve any misconceptions you may have about operator 
precedences etc.

Since practically nobody writes all their Mathematica code in FullForm, 
it follows, does it not, that they must find Mathematica code 
significantly (I would say massively) more readable than Lisp!

David Bailey

  • Prev by Date: FITS fits and workarounds
  • Next by Date: Re: ComplexExpand off by a factor of (-1)?
  • Previous by thread: Re: Mathematica and Lisp
  • Next by thread: Re: Mathematica and Lisp