Re: Pattern Matching and Transform Rules

<fjolsvit@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1133130668.098304.231710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Can you provide an example of how, say, C++ has superior pattern
> matching than Mathematica? We are talking about a recursive
> application of the language which is used to examine and transform
> expressions written in the language under consideration.

Well, it wouldn't be fair to compare such a huge programming system as C++,
with tremendous amount of libraries, with such a relatively small system as
Mathematica. A simple Google search for "C++ pattern matching libraries"
gives 2,550,000 results while "pattern matching in Mathematica" gives only
about 120,000 results. That's a big difference.

Alec


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Pattern Matching and Transform Rules
    ... Can you provide an example of how, say, C++ has superior pattern ... matching than Mathematica? ... expressions written in the language under consideration. ...
    (sci.math.symbolic)
  • Re: Languages similar to Mathematica?
    ... In the context of Haskell this means another thing as in Mathematica. ... My experience with Mathematica is very limited, but as far as I know its matching is purely structural. ... But Mathematica's pattern-matching language is significantly more powerful than ML/Haskell pattern matching, and one extra feature is used in the integration example. ...
    (comp.lang.functional)
  • Re: Languages similar to Mathematica?
    ... I mean a language that would allow for a relatively simple ... implementation of the example in section 2.3.14 of the Mathematica book ... SWI-Prolog comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. ...
    (comp.lang.functional)