4 ms·

I love Rust for mathematical and scientific tasks (I am building the structural bio crate infrastructure), and I love Mathematica and have a personal sub. I sho

I love Rust for mathematical and scientific tasks (I am building the structural bio crate infrastructure), and I love Mathematica and have a personal sub. I should be the audience, but... What makes Mathematica great, IMO, is the polish and overall experience created by consistent work with applications in mind over decades. So, I look at this project with skepticism regarding its utility.

amelius 8mo ago
Yeah, the Mathematica language is the least interesting aspect of the Mathematica system. Closely followed by the interactive notebooks.
- aeonik 8mo ago
  I disagree, the language itself is one of the more elegant parts of the system, and enables a lot of the rest of the elegance. From a purely programming language theory, it's pretty unique. I once tried to find a language that had all the same properties, and I failed. The Factor language is probably the closest. But they are still pretty different.
  - zozbot234 8mo ago
    The relevant programming paradigm is string/term rewriting, which is featured in other programming languages such as Pure. It seems to have few direct applications outside of symbolic computing itself, compilers and related fields such as PL theory. (Formal calculi and languages are often specified in PL theory as rewrite rules, even though the practical implementation may ultimately differ.)
    - aeonik 8mo ago
      Indeed, I think I messed up the language name too. It was Kernel that was most similar with the fexpr capability. Pure is a good example too. https://web.cs.wpi.edu/~jshutt/kernel.html https://web.cs.wpi.edu/~jshutt/kernel.html
- s3p 8mo ago
  First I believe there is no such thing as the Mathematica language, it's Wolframscript which is useful in a bunch of different applications. And second, if you don't have access to a $1000 / yr wolfram subscription, this would be the next best thing.
  - adius 8mo ago
    They rebranded it to Wolfram Language a few years ago (which I actually appreciate, as it is so much more than just "math" by now!) https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2013/02/what-should-we-call-the-language-of-mathematica/ https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2013/02/what-should-we-c...
- stared 8mo ago
  The notebooks were THE thing of Mathematica, at least to me. 12 years ago, as I was finishing my PhD in quantum optics, I wanted to migrate to the stack used in industry - and picked Python. Also, that way I was an early adopter of Jupyter Notebook, as it captured what was need + was open. Now Mathematica notebooks (still remember, it is .nb) do not have the novelty factor. But they were the first to set a trend, which we now take for granted. That said, I rarely use notebooks anymore. In the coding time, it is much easier to create scripts and ask to create a visualization in HTML.
- abdullahkhalids 8mo ago
  > Closely followed by the interactive notebooks. Mathematica's notebooks are the only environment where I can do some computation to arrive at a symbolic expression. Copy the expression from the output cell into a new input cell. Then manipulate it by hand into the form I want. Then continue processing it further. Also, symbolic expressions can be written nicely with actual superscripts and subscripts, and with non-latin characters. One of the best features of Mathematica system.
  - lejalv 8mo ago
    Have a look at TeXmacs! (https://texmacs.org https://texmacs.org) (AFAIK, you can run Mathematica sessions in TeXmacs, get proper typesetting, and can copy/paste expressions for simplification by hand or using other CAS sessions in the same TeXmacs document).
adius 8mo ago
Sure, but you've got to start somewhere! And with the amount of progress I was able to make in just a few weeks, I'm very optimistic that the polish will come sooner rather than later.
- the__alchemist 8mo ago
  Based on the list of contributors to your project, I am not sure this starting location is optimally suited to the task of building a foundation for polished, reliable, expandable software.
  - adampunk 8mo ago
    In that case I kindly refer you to the matter of Arkell v. Pressdam.
  - s3p 8mo ago
    The sneering on HN really has no end. This is a good project! I for one am very excited to see an interpreter born out of rust.
    - mountainriver 8mo ago
      It’s so obnoxious
    - Keyframe 8mo ago
      It's a defense mechanism. I was guilty as charge as well initially. Suddenly most of your l33t skillz are trivialized and surpassed by an inhumane actor. It's a tough pill to swallow.
  - adius 8mo ago
    It's having ~ 5000 tests already. Used correctly, AI agents can help you improve the quality of the code!
    - the__alchemist 8mo ago
rustyhancock 8mo ago
Similarly I'm not sure Octave ever really got that polish to compete with MATLAB. SPSS is hilariously painful to use. Still it's only losing ground ever so slowly. PSPP remains almost unheard of among SPSS core users.
- 3eb7988a1663 8mo ago
  I am not sure Octave ever had to put on that much polish. It just had to be decent enough to save $$$$ vs a Matlab license. If it can drop-in run the code that has been keeping the lab going for decades, good enough.
  - gmueckl 8mo ago
    MathWorks offers a huge list of "toolboxes", domain specific extensions that cover a lot of features in each domain. Replacing Matlab isn't about the core language alone.
    - tstenner 8mo ago
      Which often means that e.g. loading an image for displaying it increases cost by a few thousands
      - gmueckl 8mo ago
        The price tags are wild for sure. But the sheer number of supported features is what makes them attractive. Cloning that completely is practically infeasable.
        tstenner 8mo ago
        If you were using everything in the toolboxes, it would be absolutely worth it. As it is, you often need an additional toolbox for basic functionality and pay for everything in it.
  - wolvesechoes 8mo ago
drnick1 8mo ago
Half-assed reimplementations of existing software (often in the name of "memory safety") is what the Rust community is best known for.
- the__alchemist 8mo ago
  I find rust to be the best language and tool set in most categories. I still agree with this characterization.
- nextaccountic 8mo ago
  Mathematica is proprietary software. Any reimplementation is better than nothing at all, at least for people that don't run proprietary software
  - wolvesechoes 8mo ago
    Useless thing is not less useless by the virtue of being FOSS. That's something FOSS folks have yet to understand. All the best to the author, they definitely have fun doing this, but I've seen enough of such attempts. Having agents doesn't make much difference.
    - j16sdiz 8mo ago
      The difference is huge - It burns money quicker and nobody understands the code
    - nextaccountic 8mo ago
      People said the same thing about Linux in the 90s
      - wolvesechoes 8mo ago
        Very nice, now explain what makes this fact relevant.
  - Sharlin 8mo ago

amelius 8mo ago

Yeah, the Mathematica language is the least interesting aspect of the Mathematica system. Closely followed by the interactive notebooks.

aeonik 8mo ago
I disagree, the language itself is one of the more elegant parts of the system, and enables a lot of the rest of the elegance. From a purely programming language theory, it's pretty unique. I once tried to find a language that had all the same properties, and I failed. The Factor language is probably the closest. But they are still pretty different.
- zozbot234 8mo ago
  The relevant programming paradigm is string/term rewriting, which is featured in other programming languages such as Pure. It seems to have few direct applications outside of symbolic computing itself, compilers and related fields such as PL theory. (Formal calculi and languages are often specified in PL theory as rewrite rules, even though the practical implementation may ultimately differ.)
  - aeonik 8mo ago
    Indeed, I think I messed up the language name too. It was Kernel that was most similar with the fexpr capability. Pure is a good example too. https://web.cs.wpi.edu/~jshutt/kernel.html https://web.cs.wpi.edu/~jshutt/kernel.html
s3p 8mo ago
First I believe there is no such thing as the Mathematica language, it's Wolframscript which is useful in a bunch of different applications. And second, if you don't have access to a $1000 / yr wolfram subscription, this would be the next best thing.
- adius 8mo ago
  They rebranded it to Wolfram Language a few years ago (which I actually appreciate, as it is so much more than just "math" by now!) https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2013/02/what-should-we-call-the-language-of-mathematica/ https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2013/02/what-should-we-c...
stared 8mo ago
The notebooks were THE thing of Mathematica, at least to me. 12 years ago, as I was finishing my PhD in quantum optics, I wanted to migrate to the stack used in industry - and picked Python. Also, that way I was an early adopter of Jupyter Notebook, as it captured what was need + was open. Now Mathematica notebooks (still remember, it is .nb) do not have the novelty factor. But they were the first to set a trend, which we now take for granted. That said, I rarely use notebooks anymore. In the coding time, it is much easier to create scripts and ask to create a visualization in HTML.
abdullahkhalids 8mo ago
> Closely followed by the interactive notebooks. Mathematica's notebooks are the only environment where I can do some computation to arrive at a symbolic expression. Copy the expression from the output cell into a new input cell. Then manipulate it by hand into the form I want. Then continue processing it further. Also, symbolic expressions can be written nicely with actual superscripts and subscripts, and with non-latin characters. One of the best features of Mathematica system.
- lejalv 8mo ago
  Have a look at TeXmacs! (https://texmacs.org https://texmacs.org) (AFAIK, you can run Mathematica sessions in TeXmacs, get proper typesetting, and can copy/paste expressions for simplification by hand or using other CAS sessions in the same TeXmacs document).

adius 8mo ago

Sure, but you've got to start somewhere! And with the amount of progress I was able to make in just a few weeks, I'm very optimistic that the polish will come sooner rather than later.

the__alchemist 8mo ago
Based on the list of contributors to your project, I am not sure this starting location is optimally suited to the task of building a foundation for polished, reliable, expandable software.
- adampunk 8mo ago
  In that case I kindly refer you to the matter of Arkell v. Pressdam.
- s3p 8mo ago
  The sneering on HN really has no end. This is a good project! I for one am very excited to see an interpreter born out of rust.
  - mountainriver 8mo ago
    It’s so obnoxious
  - Keyframe 8mo ago
    It's a defense mechanism. I was guilty as charge as well initially. Suddenly most of your l33t skillz are trivialized and surpassed by an inhumane actor. It's a tough pill to swallow.
- adius 8mo ago
  It's having ~ 5000 tests already. Used correctly, AI agents can help you improve the quality of the code!
  - the__alchemist 8mo ago

rustyhancock 8mo ago

Similarly I'm not sure Octave ever really got that polish to compete with MATLAB. SPSS is hilariously painful to use. Still it's only losing ground ever so slowly. PSPP remains almost unheard of among SPSS core users.

3eb7988a1663 8mo ago
I am not sure Octave ever had to put on that much polish. It just had to be decent enough to save $$$$ vs a Matlab license. If it can drop-in run the code that has been keeping the lab going for decades, good enough.
- gmueckl 8mo ago
  MathWorks offers a huge list of "toolboxes", domain specific extensions that cover a lot of features in each domain. Replacing Matlab isn't about the core language alone.
  - tstenner 8mo ago
    Which often means that e.g. loading an image for displaying it increases cost by a few thousands
    - gmueckl 8mo ago
      The price tags are wild for sure. But the sheer number of supported features is what makes them attractive. Cloning that completely is practically infeasable.
      - tstenner 8mo ago
        If you were using everything in the toolboxes, it would be absolutely worth it. As it is, you often need an additional toolbox for basic functionality and pay for everything in it.
- wolvesechoes 8mo ago

drnick1 8mo ago

Half-assed reimplementations of existing software (often in the name of "memory safety") is what the Rust community is best known for.

the__alchemist 8mo ago
I find rust to be the best language and tool set in most categories. I still agree with this characterization.
nextaccountic 8mo ago
Mathematica is proprietary software. Any reimplementation is better than nothing at all, at least for people that don't run proprietary software
- wolvesechoes 8mo ago
  Useless thing is not less useless by the virtue of being FOSS. That's something FOSS folks have yet to understand. All the best to the author, they definitely have fun doing this, but I've seen enough of such attempts. Having agents doesn't make much difference.
  - j16sdiz 8mo ago
    The difference is huge - It burns money quicker and nobody understands the code
  - nextaccountic 8mo ago
    People said the same thing about Linux in the 90s
    - wolvesechoes 8mo ago
      Very nice, now explain what makes this fact relevant.
- Sharlin 8mo ago