21 ms·
Launching Mathematica 10
- taliesinb 12y agoHere's the list of what's new since version 9 of Mathematica: http://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/new-in-10/ http://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/new-in-10/
- rhodin 12y agoAnd here: http://reference.wolfram.com/language/guide/SummaryOfNewFeaturesIn100.html http://reference.wolfram.com/language/guide/SummaryOfNewFeat...
- programnature 12y agoThis is an impressive release. GeoGraphics is amazing example of the power of integration between domains. Built-in data about the world, with semantic integration into graphics as well as data analysis. This is way beyond what any existing mapping solution has delivered. The geometry stuff is also amazing and very useful for generative design and "making"
- pling 12y ago£2050+VAT = yowsers.
- gohrt 12y ago300 for non-commercial use.
- rhodin 12y agoAlso based on the Mathematica 10 kernel is the Programming Cloud which you can try for free: http://www.wolframcloud.com/ http://www.wolframcloud.com/
- gohrt 12y agoI don't know if it is launch-day blues, but on new MacBook Pro, the demo notebooks are sluggish, and some of the examples throw errors. And it uses "CTRL" to mean "Command", throughout. Tantalizing, but not a perfect first-impression, and it reinforces the feeling the I'd be let down if I stray from the path of polished examples and into real work. ...and it seems I corrupted the master copy of the "Things to Try" notebook -- clicking on the link again, from the home page, launches the corrupted notebook I made earlier.
- dested 12y agoHonest question, who uses Mathematica commercially? What industries?
- perardi 12y agoThere's some customer stories at: http://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/customer-stories/ http://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/customer-stories/
- alok-g 12y agoI do. I use it as an advanced calculator for doing complex mathematics too hard to deal with by hand. To answer what industries, I do everything from semiconductor device physics to databases and machine learning.
- unsignedint 12y agoOr you can get Raspi, I believe it already had pre-release version of the version 10 for while. Just, it will be slow...
- LeoPanthera 12y agoCan the RPi version use Wolfram Cloud to speed it up?
- cma 12y agoYou can see it rendering its buttons and menus.. slowly. Typing may take 10 seconds to respond. It is completely unoptimized for ARM, or at least was when I tried it.
- taliesinb 12y agoIt's true it can't use libraries like the Intel Performance Primitives on ARM, but that's not why the UI is slow on RPi. RPi's UI is slow because all graphics-intensive GUI stuff on RPi is slow. Firefox is unusable, for example.
- angersock 12y agoI'm very impressed by this stuff--especially the new computational geometry features. I'm just a little hesitant to do any meaningful work in such a closed ecosystem.
- gohrt 12y agoFor a non-commerical user, it's hard to see Mathematica as more than TODO list for http://www.sagemath.org http://www.sagemath.org
- _delirium 12y agoI'd like that to be true, but I think it's still some years away from being a similar experience. Sage is impressive but still very much shows its seams: it's trying to glue together a bunch of separately developed projects, with their own ideas about things (everything from Maxima to R), and the glue is often pretty noticeable if you do anything remotely complex. (That said, I also avoid using Mathematica for most things because I'm squeamish about ending up with any significant project too closely tied to a proprietary platform.)
- Schiphol 12y agoI once tried to do meaningful work and, while things such as the NDSolve[] function are positively amazing, programming in Mathematica (which means using its editor) is a huge pain when you are used, say, to vim. In the end I moved everything I had to the Python scientific stack and I'm very happy I did it.
- szhorvat 12y agoYou need to get used to the notebook concept. In the end you'll find that it's much more convenient for interactive work than a traditional command line. For non-interactive work you can still use Vim if you like. In fact Mathematica shows its advantages most when used interactively (compared to languages, like Python, which were not really designed for this).
- 12y ago
- gohrt 12y agoThis made me laugh: http://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/new-in-10/key-value-associative-arrays/ http://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/new-in-10/key-value-assoc... Version 10 introduces fundamental new constructs called associations. They associate keys with values, allowing highly efficient lookup and updating, even with millions of elements. Associations provide generalizations of symbolically indexed lists, associative arrays, dictionaries, hashmaps, structs, and a variety of other powerful data structures.
- arjn 12y agoSounds like a hashtable ... is that what made you laugh ?
- mehmetemre 12y agoI think adding hashtables to a high-level language in 10th release, 26 years after its inception, made him/her laugh. As a note: IIRC, SWI-Prolog got hash tables in their 7th release, so some fundamental data structure can be added to a language when it's seen as not needed by the language developers.
- programnature 12y agoTo be fair, fast immutable hash tables have only been around as a technology since around 2005. (Yes, Mathematica is mostly based on immutability) .Other than internal R&D, Wolfram never add experimental methods to Mathematica. Of course, its always had lists of rules as a far more general (though much slower) form of the hash table concept.
- madengr 12y agoWe'll see if they fixed the proxy so it can get through our corporate firewall, otherwise the alpha integration is useless. No other programs have a problem except Mathematica.
- Osmium 12y agoDoes anyone know if Mathematica 10 is retina-ready for Mac yet? This may seem petty to some, but when you do a lot of data visualisation, it really does matter. As an aside, I've been using IPython Notebooks a lot over Mathematica over the past year and have generally been really happy with the change – not least because I know I won't be locked out of my notebooks if I can't afford a Mathematica license in future! That all said, I recently revisited a Mathematica notebook I'd made in the past, and it reminded me why I started using it in the first place. It really is a great piece of software: great libraries, great performance, generally a pleasure to use.
- nawitus 12y agoInteresting features, but I feel like it's a lost cause, as it's not worth investing in a proprietary platform.
- j2kun 12y agoTell that to the millions of engineers that invest in Matlab. But seriously, I've found lots of use for Mathematica's visualization techniques whose results (images and animations) are certainly platform independent.
- gress 12y agoWhat platform is not proprietary?
- ISL 12y agoOctave, SciPy, etc. I'm not aware of a replacement for Mathematica's symbolic manipulation that's even close. It's good enough that it's scared any pretenders out of the castle.
- spitfire 12y agoZIPCodeData and many other geographic functions are missing and have badly mangled documentation. I assume something went wrong in an automated build process. This is on the Mac OSX release. So far ZIPCodeData[], NeighborhoodData[] and MountainData[],BroadcastStationData[], MovieData[], BuildingData[], PersonData[] are all mangled. Worse yet, URLFetch is broken also. Something bad happened, at least with the Mac release. In[1]:= URLFetch["http://www.google.com/" http://www.google.com/"] General::unavail: ExportString is not available in this version of the Wolfram Language. ImportString::string: First argument ExportString[{60, 33, 100, 111, 99, 116, 121, 112, 101, 32, 104, 116, 109, 108, 62, 60, 104, 116, 109, 108, 32, 105, 116, <<19757>>, 111, 100, 121, 62, 60, 47, 104, 116, 109, 108, 62}, <<2>>] is not a string. Out[1]= ImportString[ExportString[{60, 33, 100, 111, 99, 116, 121, 112, 101,
- taliesinb 12y agoWhat is your value of $Version and SystemInformation["Small"]? I can't replicate these problems on any of the 3 platforms using freshly-downloaded versions.
- spitfire 12y agoWould having an old version installed make a difference? I renamed my current install to "mathematica backup.app" then installed mms 10. It feels like some part of mms has failed without adequately reporting it. Mac OSX 10.9.4 uname -a <~/Library/Mathematica/Licensing nyx[33] Darwin nyx.local 13.3.0 Darwin Kernel Version 13.3.0: Tue Jun 3 21:27:35 PDT 2014; root:xnu-2422.110.17~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64 Session log below. Mathematica 10.0 for Mac OS X x86 (64-bit) Copyright 1988-2014 Wolfram Research, Inc. In[1]:= $Version Out[1]= 10.0 for Mac OS X x86 (64-bit) (June 29, 2014) In[2]:= $VersionNumber Out[2]= 10. In[3]:= SystemInformation["Small"] Out[3]= {Kernel -> > {SystemID -> MacOSX-x86-64, ReleaseID -> 10.0.0.0 (5098698, 5098537), > CreationDate -> DateObject[{2014, 6, 29}, TimeObject[{20, 38, 32}]]}, > FrontEnd -> > {OperatingSystem -> $Failed, ReleaseID -> Missing[NotActive], > CreationDate -> DateObject[$Failed]}} In[4]:= URLFetch["http://www.google.com/" http://www.google.com/"] General::unavail: ExportString is not available in this version of the Wolfram Language. ImportString::string: First argument ExportString[{60, 33, 100, 111, 99, 116, 121, 112, 101, 32, 104, 116, 109, 108, 62, 60, 104, 116, 109, 108, 32, 105, 116, <<19641>>, 111, 100, 121, 62, 60, 47, 104, 116, 109, 108, 62}, <<2>>] is not a string. Out[4]= ImportString[ExportString[{60, 33, 100, 111, 99, 116, 121, 112, 101, > 32, 104, 116, 109, 108, 62, 60, 104, 116, 109, 108, 32, 105, 116, 101, -- Snip -- In[5]:= ExportString[] ExportString::argrx: ExportString called with 0 arguments; 2 arguments are expected. Out[5]= ExportString[]
- reikonomusha 12y agoI hate to be that guy, but I wish to share my opinion about closed source mathematical software. There is no doubt that what Wolfram Research has done with Mathematica is amazing and tempting. It is a very complete and uniform engine, and can be very useful for very different kinds of mathematics. However, Wolfram Research deliberately keeps their methods and source code closed. Note that this is more serious than just the "Stallman-esque" open-source-everything philosophy. Wolfram insists that users do not need to know implementation details of their methods. This is plainly in their documentation. You can see the uncompelling argument from Wolfram here [6]. The gist of the argument is that interfaces matter, not implementations. I strongly argue that users, especially mathematicians and engineers, should care about the internals of mathematical software, especially when it's being used, even in a utilitarian fashion, for research and engineering. Not only this, but Wolfram has litigated against his own employees for publishing mathematical proofs about cellular automata. Information about this lawsuit is sparse, but evidence of it can be seen in [0]. More information can be found here [1]. Unfortunately most responses to the above from users of Mathematica is "well I just use Mathematica as a calculator, nothing serious" or "I wouldn't look at the source code anyway, so what gives?" It's an unfortunate response, and I don't have a technical rebuttal, but a moral one, which many don't want to hear. It pains me to see the technical reliance on Mathematica (and other software such as MATLAB) in professional mathematicians, scientists, and engineers. It reminds me of an addictive drug; one of the best hackers I know does their work completely in Mathematica, and can no longer work without it. As is the case with a lot of closed source, proprietary software, there aren't a ton of good alternatives. There is a plethora of logistical issues with existing computer algebra systems, but I nonetheless recommend them. Sage [2] is a continuously growing system based on Python which has backing from a lot of mathematicians. They are continually improving it. There's also Maxima [3]. None of these has quite an extensive array of functionality and graphical capabilities as Mathematica. I (and others) have written more about this issue more extensively here [4] for those interested. This is an extension on the article written by Jordi G. Hermoso [5]. If you took the time to read this, thanks. [0] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/theory-edge/conversations/messages/5828 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/theory-edge/conversation... [1] http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/wolfram/ http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/wolfra... [2] http://www.sagemath.org/ http://www.sagemath.org/ [3] http://andrejv.github.io/wxmaxima/ http://andrejv.github.io/wxmaxima/ [4] http://symbo1ics.com/blog/?p=69 http://symbo1ics.com/blog/?p=69 [5] http://www.symbo1ics.com/files/jordi.pdf http://www.symbo1ics.com/files/jordi.pdf [6] http://reference.wolfram.com/language/tutorial/WhyYouDoNotUsuallyNeedToKnowAboutInternals.html http://reference.wolfram.com/language/tutorial/WhyYouDoNotUs...
- bane 12y agoI like to dump on Wolfram as much as anybody else, but tbh, these really are nice looking visualizations backed with a nice set of general purpose tooling.