4 ms·
there are more than a few Mathematica-isms that Rich has admitted being influenced by Can you say what some of those are? I'm enjoying your comments on this.
by gruseom 13y ago
there are more than a few Mathematica-isms that Rich has admitted being influenced by
Can you say what some of those are?
I'm enjoying your comments on this.
- snprbob86 13y agoFor one thing, "An Introduction to Programming with Mathematica" is on his Clojure bookshelf: http://www.amazon.com/Clojure-Bookshelf/lm/R3LG3ZBZS4GCTH http://www.amazon.com/Clojure-Bookshelf/lm/R3LG3ZBZS4GCTH A quick Googling will show you that Rich has popped his head into a bunch of conversations where both Clojure and Mathematica are mentioned. He's also mentioned it in a talk or two.
- gruseom 13y agoWell let me ask you this, then: what do you recommend as a way to learn Mathematica? I feel like I should know more about it. My interest is less in the details of using the software and more in its computational model and its approach to language design. Any suggestions on what a natural approach would be?
- snprbob86 13y agoStart with Mathematica's builtin documentation. The overview pages are actually quite good. They are also online [1]. Of course, given that the early drafts were written by Wolfram himself, you'll have to ignore absurd statements like this one: "Long viewed as an important theoretical idea, functional programming finally became truly convenient and practical with the introduction of Mathematica's symbolic language." [2] See also: Pure [3] [1] http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/tutorial/CoreLanguageOverview.html http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/tutorial/CoreLangua... [2] http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/guide/FunctionalProgramming.html http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/guide/FunctionalPro... [3] http://purelang.bitbucket.org/ http://purelang.bitbucket.org/