6 ms·

Why use the Mathematica syntax, and not a better one? It's rather annoying syntax, Matlab and Maple are much better for this. Mathematicians don't use square br

Why use the Mathematica syntax, and not a better one? It's rather annoying syntax, Matlab and Maple are much better for this. Mathematicians don't use square brackets for functions, most programming languages don't either, but Mathematica, a mathematics language ffs, does. And sin and cos with capitals, meh.

renanbirck 14y ago
Personally, I like that Mathematica uses capitals for functions: it means that the entire namespace of lower-case variables is free - unlike in Sage, MATLAB etc... In fact, this is how you're supposed to name your variables in Mathematica.
alok-g 14y ago
For one, Mathematica tries hard to keep its syntax consistent, even if it has to break backward compatibility sometimes. Naming convention in Matlab is often inconsistent (even though Matlab also at times changes things to break backward compatibility). Also Matlab's documentation is often not complete, frequently requiring Google searches. I have rarely needed that with Mathematica. My core reasons to use Matlab at times are: 1. More toolboxes, including those from third-parties 2. More team members familiar with Matlab than Mathematica
omaranto 14y ago
It uses Sympy and SAGE under the hood, you'd probably prefer their syntaxes.
niggler 14y ago
"Mathematicians don't use square brackets for functions" Not true at all: 1) Operators acting on a distribution: E[X], Var[X], Cov[X,Y] 2) Square brackets are used in nested parentheses to avoid confusion: [1(2 + 3) + 4]/5 3) Functionals: L[f] for lagrangian The main reason why [] isn't used as frequently as () is because most domains interpret the square brackets to mean something special. For example: 1) [x] is often used to denote floor(x) 2) [i=j] is used to denote the kronecker delta
- stch2 14y ago
  On point (2) -- In four years of being a math major, I don't think a single professor ever used brackets in that situation, only additional parentheses.
  - defrost 14y ago
    I'm inclined to agree that it's use would be uncommon, I've not encountered it in 30 odd years of reading papers and talking math (or rather I don't recall noticing it's use). What I must point out is you make a weak case based on myopia- for example; in 15 years of working with tens of thousands of hours of high resolution radiometrics I've never once met and talked to a dendrochronologist who's looked at the radiometric signature of individual bands of Japanese pine trees. It's my understanding that such beasts do exist.
  - DoubleCluster 14y ago
    It's common in engineering. I like it because it makes matching parenthesis much easier.
  - sn6uv 14y ago
    Another math major here (in my final year). My professors routinely use square brackets after the second or third level of bracket nesting. I think it must depend on the professor/university.
fdej 14y ago
This is a rather superficial objection. Using square brackets for function application frees up juxtaposition for multiplication (without introducing ambiguity like in standard mathematical notation), so that's just a tradeoff. The use of capitals is consistent and helps distinguish builtin functions from user-defined functions and variables. These particular conventions are really things you get used to quickly, unless you're deliberately trying to be annoyed by them.
Uncompetative 14y ago
Mathematical notation is ambiguous and therefore unsuited to parsing as a computer syntax. s(x + y) can represent scalar multiplication, or function application. Mathematica only uses s(x + y) for scalar multiplication and s[x + y] for function application to avoid this problem. Sin[alpha], etc. is just a symptom of its consistent naming convention for built-ins. The use of Capitalised names frees you to create your own function names in lowercase without fretting about namespace conflicts. I've downloaded Mathics onto my Mac, unpacked it, installed it and tested it without issue. The web interface works well too. I'm very impressed with this software and appreciate all their efforts, especially what appear to be well commented sources. To complain that a better notation could have been used is to completely miss the point. This is for people who would like to use Mathematica syntax but can't afford the licence. I've got four books on Mathematica, but can't remotely afford to purchase it.
- mjcohen 14y ago
  How about $300 for the home version?
jfarmer 14y ago
Any mathematician will agree: mathematics is invariant under change of notation.
- sprash 14y ago
  But sometimes the right notation can make things simpler and easier to understand. (e.g. Einsteins Four-Vectors)
- Evbn 14y ago
  But mathematics communication is not, hence new fields coming to life when a great notation is introduced.
rplacd 14y ago
You can either have (a) consistency or (b) convention. Most people would jump at the opportunity to ditch (b), re-invent the wheel, and establish (a) just for the cleaner semantics.

renanbirck 14y ago

Personally, I like that Mathematica uses capitals for functions: it means that the entire namespace of lower-case variables is free - unlike in Sage, MATLAB etc... In fact, this is how you're supposed to name your variables in Mathematica.

alok-g 14y ago

For one, Mathematica tries hard to keep its syntax consistent, even if it has to break backward compatibility sometimes. Naming convention in Matlab is often inconsistent (even though Matlab also at times changes things to break backward compatibility). Also Matlab's documentation is often not complete, frequently requiring Google searches. I have rarely needed that with Mathematica. My core reasons to use Matlab at times are: 1. More toolboxes, including those from third-parties 2. More team members familiar with Matlab than Mathematica

omaranto 14y ago

It uses Sympy and SAGE under the hood, you'd probably prefer their syntaxes.

niggler 14y ago

"Mathematicians don't use square brackets for functions" Not true at all: 1) Operators acting on a distribution: E[X], Var[X], Cov[X,Y] 2) Square brackets are used in nested parentheses to avoid confusion: [1(2 + 3) + 4]/5 3) Functionals: L[f] for lagrangian The main reason why [] isn't used as frequently as () is because most domains interpret the square brackets to mean something special. For example: 1) [x] is often used to denote floor(x) 2) [i=j] is used to denote the kronecker delta

stch2 14y ago
On point (2) -- In four years of being a math major, I don't think a single professor ever used brackets in that situation, only additional parentheses.
- defrost 14y ago
  I'm inclined to agree that it's use would be uncommon, I've not encountered it in 30 odd years of reading papers and talking math (or rather I don't recall noticing it's use). What I must point out is you make a weak case based on myopia- for example; in 15 years of working with tens of thousands of hours of high resolution radiometrics I've never once met and talked to a dendrochronologist who's looked at the radiometric signature of individual bands of Japanese pine trees. It's my understanding that such beasts do exist.
- DoubleCluster 14y ago
  It's common in engineering. I like it because it makes matching parenthesis much easier.
- sn6uv 14y ago
  Another math major here (in my final year). My professors routinely use square brackets after the second or third level of bracket nesting. I think it must depend on the professor/university.

fdej 14y ago

This is a rather superficial objection. Using square brackets for function application frees up juxtaposition for multiplication (without introducing ambiguity like in standard mathematical notation), so that's just a tradeoff. The use of capitals is consistent and helps distinguish builtin functions from user-defined functions and variables. These particular conventions are really things you get used to quickly, unless you're deliberately trying to be annoyed by them.

Uncompetative 14y ago

Mathematical notation is ambiguous and therefore unsuited to parsing as a computer syntax. s(x + y) can represent scalar multiplication, or function application. Mathematica only uses s(x + y) for scalar multiplication and s[x + y] for function application to avoid this problem. Sin[alpha], etc. is just a symptom of its consistent naming convention for built-ins. The use of Capitalised names frees you to create your own function names in lowercase without fretting about namespace conflicts. I've downloaded Mathics onto my Mac, unpacked it, installed it and tested it without issue. The web interface works well too. I'm very impressed with this software and appreciate all their efforts, especially what appear to be well commented sources. To complain that a better notation could have been used is to completely miss the point. This is for people who would like to use Mathematica syntax but can't afford the licence. I've got four books on Mathematica, but can't remotely afford to purchase it.

mjcohen 14y ago
How about $300 for the home version?

jfarmer 14y ago

Any mathematician will agree: mathematics is invariant under change of notation.

sprash 14y ago
But sometimes the right notation can make things simpler and easier to understand. (e.g. Einsteins Four-Vectors)
Evbn 14y ago
But mathematics communication is not, hence new fields coming to life when a great notation is introduced.

rplacd 14y ago

You can either have (a) consistency or (b) convention. Most people would jump at the opportunity to ditch (b), re-invent the wheel, and establish (a) just for the cleaner semantics.