szhorvat

5 ms·

1.
by szhorvat 2y ago
I find that the biggest practical issue with using GCC's analyser is that it's just so darn difficult to set it up and have readable output. Have you considered focusing on this a bit more? Writing documentation (or even producing
2.
by szhorvat 2y ago
I'm quite surprised to hear this. What do you get from GCC's analyser that Clang's static analyser doesn't already report? I tried to use GCC's analyser several times, but I couldn't find any good front ends to
3.
igraph 0.10 Released(igraph.org)
2 points by szhorvat 4y ago|0 comments
4.
R/igraph 1.3 Released(igraph.discourse.group)
1 points by szhorvat 4y ago|0 comments
5.
Python-Igraph 0.8 Released(igraph.discourse.group)
1 points by szhorvat 7y ago|0 comments
6.
Version 0.8 of the igraph graph/network analysis library is released(igraph.org)
3 points by szhorvat 7y ago|0 comments
7.
by szhorvat 7y ago
There's lots of ideological discussion here. I would have loved to read some experiences based on actually trying the thing ! You don't have to settle for the command line. It works with Jupyter, which seems to be the most pleasa
8.
by szhorvat 7y ago
Now you can give it a try easily. Why don't you? Maybe you will discover a new world ;-) Don't think of Mathematica as a computer algebra system. It is much more than that, fully capable of numerical computation, and just the uni
9.
by szhorvat 7y ago
For practical purposes, nothing. If you have used Mathematica in the past, and know what it is: the "Wolfram Engine" is basically the Mathematica kernel. Note that this free version only includes the kernel, not the notebook inter
10.
by szhorvat 7y ago
"I’m a representative sample of my fellow software engineers" I'm a bit puzzled about how strongly you seem to be feeling about this topic. Given your comments, you seem to be quite far from the target audience of Mathematica
11.
by szhorvat 12y ago
We were considering making http://matlink.org/ compatible with Octave. The feedback I got on this was part of why this wasn't done. To make MATLink user friendly, it needs to come with compiled binaries, which would
12.
by szhorvat 12y ago
Note that I'm not saying that one can claim that a result is correct, a theorem is true, etc. based on the fact that some undocumented algorithm produced it. That's clearly unacceptable. Nor am I saying that it's never neces
13.
by szhorvat 12y ago
I guess it depends on one's field. I've never cited a software I didn't write myself, simply saying trust this software, here's the reference . I wouldn't trust a result from Sage any better than one from Mathemat
14.
by szhorvat 12y ago
I should add that every time I asked WRI support about implementation details, I did receive an answer with references to the method used.
15.
by szhorvat 12y ago
My impression is that you don't hate to be that guy, but actually love to express this opinion. Open source systems like Sage always look desirable, simply by virtue of being open source. But every time I look at it I'm left with
16.
by szhorvat 12y ago
You 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 Mathem
17.
by szhorvat 12y ago
Yes, I agree with you assessment :-)
18.
by szhorvat 12y ago
"You import someone's changes to a local notebook" <-- there are no existing tools that reliably automate that. (I'm aware of the notebook diff utility in the AuthorTools package, but that's not reliable). Ther
19.
by szhorvat 12y ago
Notebook interfaces are nice for interactive work (I love the concept and advocate for it), but they're no replacement for an IDE for writing packages. I spend most of my time in the notebook interface, but when it comes to writing a
20.
by szhorvat 12y ago
The Front End isn't very good at taking the job of an IDE ... But it is a very good notebook interface (doesn't the notebook concept come from Mathematica originally?). Notebook interfaces are excellent for interactive work (a
21.
by szhorvat 12y ago
It's here: https://billing.wolframcloud.com/pricing.html?p=wpc
22.
by szhorvat 12y ago
What will it be able to do that Mathematica won't have? (Will Mathematica also have cloud integration?) And what about the Discovery Platform and Data Science platform? How will these differ from Mathematica?
23.
by szhorvat 12y ago
Thanks, that explaines it!
24.
by szhorvat 12y ago
Can anyone enlighten me about why the title of the post got changed? I tried to squeeze all the relevant information in there, to make it easy for people to decide whether they're interesed or not. I really hope it's not because
25.
by szhorvat 12y ago
Yes, exactly. I should have said, try Mathematica.SE for questions after having read through the inroductory tutorials. :-) Thanks for the link!
26.
by szhorvat 12y ago
Try it out here: https://programming.wolframcloud.com/app/
27.
by szhorvat 12y ago
For people new to the Wolfram Language: it's essentially a new version of the programming language of Mathematica. if you're looking for help on StackExchange, go to http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/
28.
Wolfram Programming Cloud Is Live(blog.wolfram.com)
186 points by szhorvat 12y ago|108 comments
29.
MATLink -- package for seamlessly calling Matlab from Mathematica(rsmenon.github.io)
2 points by szhorvat 13y ago|0 comments
30.
by szhorvat 13y ago
The out of code data processing is something that was sorely needed, and I was wishing for this for a long time. One of the big drawbacks of Mathematica for data processing was that it's only convenient to use if all the data can be read i

More ›