> probably incorrect use of = instead of := Oh, man, that bit me so many times, especially when it had to interact with some kind of scoping trick. I read that

> probably incorrect use of = instead of := Oh, man, that bit me so many times, especially when it had to interact with some kind of scoping trick. I read that tutorial (or the equivalent from before the WL), and never really got good intuition for how immediate & delayed evaluation worked and when to use which. > There might have been higher level ways to do this using functions like Array and Table, but perhaps not. I was actually using Table, but I was thinking of it as "iterate over these variables". Table's nice, although every once in a while it would break the picture I had in my head of it as "map-over-cartesian-products". > Plus, I think we have a chance in the next year or two to really leapfrog other languages with some amazing static analysis tools. Great! Another beef I have with Mathematica (and Scheme, for that matter) is that it doesn't have types: since I learned bits and pieces of Haskell and started using Julia seriously, I've come to love the way a type system can save me from my own stupidity. This is definitely a matter of taste, though.