4 ms·

You can acheive the same result in three lines of Wolfram Language... https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2431480?p_p_auth=lt2zjSIz https://community.wol

• idealmedtech 5y ago
  A lot of the complexity of the python code is hidden by the Geo* methods you have here; a more representative comparison would show how those methods are implemented (eg with the shape files).
  • Jon_McLoone 5y ago
    But that is the point of the Wolfram Language. If you are doing work with computation or data, it should be just built-in.
    • Jon_McLoone 5y ago
      Actually, handling .shp files is also just built-in... https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/format/SHP.html https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/format/SHP.html
  • aflag 5y ago
    There is a lot of complexity hidden in the R functions as well. The reason of using higher level languages with comprehensive standard libraries is exactly to abstract these things away. So, I think it's fair to say that, for this particular problem, wolfram language is better suited.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• Enginerrrd 5y ago
  That's actually astonishingly impressive to me.
  • retzkek 5y ago
    Stephen Wolfram gave the keynote at re:Clojure a few days ago, with an amazing demonstration of the Wolfram language. It's incredible how much data and functionality they've made available with it, and with Stephen's mastery it is bordering on wizardry. https://youtube.com/watch?v=3C1QQXEg_F8&t=34811s https://youtube.com/watch?v=3C1QQXEg_F8&t=34811s