6 ms·

As others have pointed out, Mathics is missing features relative to Mathematica, so it is an alternative provided you can work within Mathics' subset of feature

As others have pointed out, Mathics is missing features relative to Mathematica, so it is an alternative provided you can work within Mathics' subset of features. So if you are doing anything but tinkering it is still best to buy Mathematica. But Mathics is great for exploring the concepts in the Mathematica programming language, a language that does not get the attention it deserves. If you are not familiar with Mathematica as a language and and are curious, see this comparison of Mathematica with other programming languages such as C, APL, and Lisp, from the first edition of the Mathematica book: http://reference.wolfram.com/legacy/v1/contents/4.2.html http://reference.wolfram.com/legacy/v1/contents/4.2.html (this fourth section was dropped from the second edition and beyond).

alok-g 14y ago
As an avid user of Mathematica, I have been also partly annoyed by the language. I find that getting something (complex) to work takes much longer than ideally needed due to complex syntax. It would take still longer with other tools for mathematical problems, so I cannot really be complaining. I "may" have discovered a language that seems better Mathematica: Modelica [1]. It turns out that Wolfram itself recently purchased a Modelica add-on to Mathematica, which it now markets as its new SystemModeler product [2]. Note that while the Modelica language is not intended towards general-purpose computations, I find the core concepts behind the language to be valid beyond its intended purposes. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modelica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modelica [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfram_SystemModeler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfram_SystemModeler
phponrails 14y ago
Last time I checked Wolfram wasnt even hiring. . . . . . . Why bother learning Mathematica or writing your own free version i mean seriously? There are perfectly good Javascript libraries for doing whatever "math" stuff you feel like burying your nose in and another thing. . . . It's actually impossible to write a computer program that will prove anything significant. Turing figured that out like 80 years ago, get a clue morans
- rootedbox 14y ago
  I would suggest not to choose languages based off of who's hiring.. that being said.. Wolfram is always hiring.. Mathematica's language / environment is very effective at rapid prototyping math, computation, and physics applications... Thats why people use it.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    He's a troll rapidly on his way to a hellbanning, don't waste your breath.
- coldtea 14y ago
  >Why bother learning Mathematica or writing your own free version i mean seriously? There are perfectly good Javascript libraries for doing whatever "math" stuff you feel like burying your nose in and another thing. . . . Not very familiar with this "math" thing, are we? >It's actually impossible to write a computer program that will prove anything significant. Turing figured that out like 80 years ago, get a clue morans It's "morons", I believe. And Turing figured nothing of the sort. Not to mention that it's very easy to write a computer program that will prove something significant (as long as you don't expect the program to do the whole proof itself, which it can also be done).
niggler 14y ago
The language is pretty well-documented. For example: http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/tutorial/OperatorInputForms.html http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/tutorial/OperatorIn...
- abraxasz 14y ago
  This is something that has bugged me for a long time: how do people consider a "language reference" as a good documentation? Maybe it's because I'm not a programmer, so I'm not used to reading language references, but when I'm picking up a new language or a new tool, the most important things is to have examples on how to use the language to get things done. Take the unix manual for instance. The first thing I do when checking the manual is to search for example. Reading the list of switches is useless to me unless I have a working example of how the thing works. So a good thing is a tutorial that guides people to the main parts of the language, explains the pitfalls, etc. I had to use mathematica to check some derivations about 6 months ago, and I spent a whole day trying to figure out how to work with it, and honestly, I nearly drowned under the documentation. There seems to be many ways to do the same thing (take the derivative of a function) and it is not always clear how/why should we use one method over the other. Another problem I have with mathematica is that although the different functions are extensively referenced (I won't use the word documented), the language itself is not very well explained, and by language I mean how to piece all the functions together and more into one coherent piece of software. Now I haven't spent enough time with it for my judgment to be definitive, but I found it harder to pick up than most languages / tools I've used.
  - tokipin 14y ago
    i'm not sure what language you're talking about... the Mathematica Help docs are full of examples. check this Histogram page[1] and scroll down, check the Options section, Applications section, etc. that is a typical level of exemplification for a function like Histogram, and other functions are detailed as appropriate and the examples regularly showcase how to use various functions/functionality together. i think what may have happened in your case is that you believed Mathematica was a math-specific tool (which it isn't) and so you didn't pay enough attention to the non-math aspects of the language, such as the basic API (for which there is replete documentation/examples in the Help docs, see for example [2]). the most useful key in Mathematica is F1. click on anything, any symbol or function, and hit F1 to see the Help page for that item [1] http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/Histogram.html http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/Histogram.html [2] http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/guide/ListManipulation.html http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/guide/ListManipulat...
carlob 14y ago
There is this on the language features http://reference.wolfram.com/legacy/v5/Tour/MathematicaAsAProgrammingLanguage.html http://reference.wolfram.com/legacy/v5/Tour/MathematicaAsAPr... which is just a little more recent. But I agree that Mathematica should be explored more as a general purpose programming language.
- RaphiePS 14y ago
  I love Mathematica and use it nearly every day. However, I would not recommend it as general purpose language because of its proprietary nature. The $295 barrier to entry is way too high. Unless there are better interpreters than Mathics (which as someone mentioned is great, but is just a subset) around, I don't see the point.
  - jgamman 14y ago
    you love it. you use it every day. $295 is too high?
    - opminion 14y ago
      You cannot share your source code in a way that those who matter to you can modify and run, without them paying the price too. Including your future self.
      - coldtea 14y ago
        And you cannot take anyone out for a ride, unless you buy a car.
        dhimes 14y ago
        He's saying that you cannot take anyone for a ride unless they buy the car also.
      - Evbn 14y ago
        ? The license is perpetual.

alok-g 14y ago

As an avid user of Mathematica, I have been also partly annoyed by the language. I find that getting something (complex) to work takes much longer than ideally needed due to complex syntax. It would take still longer with other tools for mathematical problems, so I cannot really be complaining. I "may" have discovered a language that seems better Mathematica: Modelica [1]. It turns out that Wolfram itself recently purchased a Modelica add-on to Mathematica, which it now markets as its new SystemModeler product [2]. Note that while the Modelica language is not intended towards general-purpose computations, I find the core concepts behind the language to be valid beyond its intended purposes. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modelica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modelica [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfram_SystemModeler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfram_SystemModeler

phponrails 14y ago

Last time I checked Wolfram wasnt even hiring. . . . . . . Why bother learning Mathematica or writing your own free version i mean seriously? There are perfectly good Javascript libraries for doing whatever "math" stuff you feel like burying your nose in and another thing. . . . It's actually impossible to write a computer program that will prove anything significant. Turing figured that out like 80 years ago, get a clue morans

rootedbox 14y ago
I would suggest not to choose languages based off of who's hiring.. that being said.. Wolfram is always hiring.. Mathematica's language / environment is very effective at rapid prototyping math, computation, and physics applications... Thats why people use it.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  He's a troll rapidly on his way to a hellbanning, don't waste your breath.
coldtea 14y ago
>Why bother learning Mathematica or writing your own free version i mean seriously? There are perfectly good Javascript libraries for doing whatever "math" stuff you feel like burying your nose in and another thing. . . . Not very familiar with this "math" thing, are we? >It's actually impossible to write a computer program that will prove anything significant. Turing figured that out like 80 years ago, get a clue morans It's "morons", I believe. And Turing figured nothing of the sort. Not to mention that it's very easy to write a computer program that will prove something significant (as long as you don't expect the program to do the whole proof itself, which it can also be done).

niggler 14y ago

The language is pretty well-documented. For example: http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/tutorial/OperatorInputForms.html http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/tutorial/OperatorIn...

abraxasz 14y ago
This is something that has bugged me for a long time: how do people consider a "language reference" as a good documentation? Maybe it's because I'm not a programmer, so I'm not used to reading language references, but when I'm picking up a new language or a new tool, the most important things is to have examples on how to use the language to get things done. Take the unix manual for instance. The first thing I do when checking the manual is to search for example. Reading the list of switches is useless to me unless I have a working example of how the thing works. So a good thing is a tutorial that guides people to the main parts of the language, explains the pitfalls, etc. I had to use mathematica to check some derivations about 6 months ago, and I spent a whole day trying to figure out how to work with it, and honestly, I nearly drowned under the documentation. There seems to be many ways to do the same thing (take the derivative of a function) and it is not always clear how/why should we use one method over the other. Another problem I have with mathematica is that although the different functions are extensively referenced (I won't use the word documented), the language itself is not very well explained, and by language I mean how to piece all the functions together and more into one coherent piece of software. Now I haven't spent enough time with it for my judgment to be definitive, but I found it harder to pick up than most languages / tools I've used.
- tokipin 14y ago
  i'm not sure what language you're talking about... the Mathematica Help docs are full of examples. check this Histogram page[1] and scroll down, check the Options section, Applications section, etc. that is a typical level of exemplification for a function like Histogram, and other functions are detailed as appropriate and the examples regularly showcase how to use various functions/functionality together. i think what may have happened in your case is that you believed Mathematica was a math-specific tool (which it isn't) and so you didn't pay enough attention to the non-math aspects of the language, such as the basic API (for which there is replete documentation/examples in the Help docs, see for example [2]). the most useful key in Mathematica is F1. click on anything, any symbol or function, and hit F1 to see the Help page for that item [1] http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/Histogram.html http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/Histogram.html [2] http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/guide/ListManipulation.html http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/guide/ListManipulat...

carlob 14y ago

There is this on the language features http://reference.wolfram.com/legacy/v5/Tour/MathematicaAsAProgrammingLanguage.html http://reference.wolfram.com/legacy/v5/Tour/MathematicaAsAPr... which is just a little more recent. But I agree that Mathematica should be explored more as a general purpose programming language.

RaphiePS 14y ago
I love Mathematica and use it nearly every day. However, I would not recommend it as general purpose language because of its proprietary nature. The $295 barrier to entry is way too high. Unless there are better interpreters than Mathics (which as someone mentioned is great, but is just a subset) around, I don't see the point.
- jgamman 14y ago
  you love it. you use it every day. $295 is too high?
  - opminion 14y ago
    You cannot share your source code in a way that those who matter to you can modify and run, without them paying the price too. Including your future self.
    - coldtea 14y ago
      And you cannot take anyone out for a ride, unless you buy a car.
      - dhimes 14y ago
        He's saying that you cannot take anyone for a ride unless they buy the car also.
    - Evbn 14y ago
      ? The license is perpetual.