MathGroup Archive 2013

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

Search the Archive

Re: Mathematica and Lisp

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg129901] Re: Mathematica and Lisp
  • From: Peter Klamser <klamser at>
  • Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 23:33:00 -0500 (EST)
  • Delivered-to:
  • Delivered-to:
  • Delivered-to:
  • Delivered-to:
  • References: <kcqkv4$lq5$>

Hey, what a useless discussion for different items:

Mathematica is complex software which uses Lisp like language as a
base system. It is useless to open a Lisp interpreter and to try to
emulate Mathematica, because you need 10^10 lines of code to provide
Mathematica like results.

Nobody tries to write his own Lisp modules to generate a system, that
behaves like AutoCad (which uses AutoLisp...)...

So why is such a nonsense discussed here for some weeks askes


2013/2/23 David Bailey <dave at>:
> 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: Re: Compiling numerical iterations
  • Next by Date: Re: Hold & Evaluate
  • Previous by thread: Re: Mathematica and Lisp
  • Next by thread: Re: Mathematica and Lisp