Re: Computer Algebra Algorithms lisp vs. C.

Jon Harrop wrote:

Mathematica code is much more succinct (orders of magnitude, in my
experience) than C++. More importantly, the development environment of
Mathematica is vastly more powerful. For example, you can comment your code
with typeset mathematical expressions. This is obviously hugely relevant
and useful.


Please, let's be serious.
There is no sense in comparing (and even less in free advertizing...) a
low-level programming language, with a power plant equipped with huge
libraries, and whose kernel was designed to make automatic rewriting, to
process higher order data structures, etc. In order to compare sizes you
would have to put side by side an autonomous program in C++, and the
*whole* of Mathematica (without useless modules, if you manage to detach
them physically...)

And, btw, you can comment your code with anything in any language...



... For me, a scripting language is something like Perl,
something you write disposable code in. I can't see how Maple, Mathematica
etc. can be put into this category.


You do not expect the same thing from a scripting language
than from a language like C.



Again, without a definition of "scripting language", I can't get anything
out of this statement.


I'll try to give you my private definition. This is not a definition of
a language, *any* can be used for scripting. And it has nothing to do
with persistent or ephemeric (disposable) nature of your programs.
It is related to having an interpreter layer built into some
application.

Scripting is ... scripting. Imagine an application, with plenty of data
structures, interfacing contraptions and formats, etc. And with a decent
set of procedures which handle this bazaar.
Then, scripting means simple the possibility to access that stuff by
a *script*, by human-readable (in source) code. Like scripting the
3D modelling package Blender with Python. Like augmenting Word with
its awful Basic, or driving your browser with Javascript.

In this sense, programs in Maple *are* scripts.
Since they rely on the interpreter and all those libraries, they are
*obviously* short. Decent and meaningful benchmarking in such a context
may be very difficult.


Jerzy Karczmarczuk
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A question on Newtons Method
    ... >> Fortran 95 is a good language to learn the imperative ... >> style of programming for numerical work, ... >> functional programming thrown in. ... How many times have you seen Mathematica ...
    (sci.math.num-analysis)
  • Re: languages for CAS .. was: Re: Which is the best CAS
    ... you're going from the premise of learning a CAS and a programming ... a language a lot more advanced in many ways ... lisp" is not very common at all. ... for Mathematica it generates 1. ...
    (sci.math.symbolic)
  • Wolfram Workbench now available
    ... development environment for Mathematica technologies--is ... Mathematica's uniquely powerful, high-level programming language ... Key features in Workbench enable users to: ... Multi-paradigm programming that lets users program as they think, ...
    (comp.lang.java.announce)
  • Wolfram Workbench now available
    ... development environment for Mathematica technologies--is ... Mathematica's uniquely powerful, high-level programming language ... Key features in Workbench enable users to: ... Multi-paradigm programming that lets users program as they think, ...
    (sci.math.symbolic)
  • Re: How could they complain about lisp-scheme syntax
    ... language is usable as a scripting language at some level, ... more tailored to scripting than others. ... First, it's clear, that writing scripts is similar to programming. ... Taking that back to Pascal's previous definition, it becomes clear why Bash-Syntax is the way it is: Bash-language is a language focusing on calling programs, doing some minor processing and redirecting to other programs, all done with strings as strings are the common Unix data type. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
Loading