[HN Gopher] Launching Version 13.0 of Wolfram Language and Mathe...
___________________________________________________________________
Launching Version 13.0 of Wolfram Language and Mathematica
Author : nsoonhui
Score : 131 points
Date : 2021-12-16 10:17 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (writings.stephenwolfram.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (writings.stephenwolfram.com)
| Sporktacular wrote:
| My PC slows down just by displaying a page that only describes
| what Mathematica can do.
| stabbles wrote:
| https://twitter.com/hypergeometer/status/1470505437934067725
| SloopJon wrote:
| I know you're pointing out the author's concern about
| acknowledging his LGPL library, but I otherwise would have
| missed what is one of the cooler features in this huge post,
| CenteredInterval.
|
| Indeed, the post essentially brags about how big it is:
|
| > In Version 1.0 there were a total of 554 functions
| altogether. Yet between Version 12.0 and Version 13.0 we've now
| added a total of 635 new functions (in addition to the 702
| functions that have been updated and upgraded).
|
| With these batteries-included languages, mastery of the
| language really requires mastery of the library.
| zamadatix wrote:
| It's tucked in a typical "help -> about -> credits" in the app
| just like the hundreds of other libraries. The language
| documentation never includes documentation on how the functions
| were built, it's for reading what things do and how to use
| them.
| fdej wrote:
| Indeed. There's no way for users of Wolfram Cloud, for
| example, to see that information though.
| zamadatix wrote:
| I don't use cloud so I'll take your word there is no such
| information anywhere but the originally linked post is the
| author saying they don't think it's used in Cloud anyways.
| fdej wrote:
| I'm the poster. I think you misunderstood the followup
| post -- the same library is definitely used in the Cloud
| (same as the standalone Mathematica).
| zamadatix wrote:
| Appreciate the correction, you'd be right - I mistakenly
| read it as cloud vs local not normal vs interval.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| I wish that I could really get into the Wolfram Language because
| in addition to symbolic programming I really like support for
| machine learning, semantic web, and data visualization.
|
| I love using Lisp languages, I adapt to Python because I need it
| for my career in ML/DL, and Haskell for something different.
|
| I have subscribed to the Desktop Edition (better interactivity
| that the cloud version) twice, so I have about four months of
| writing little bits of code and experimenting. I don't mind the
| price (I happily pay for full up LispWorks with support). It is
| the language itself.
|
| I have experimented with using WL from Common Lisp and Clojure,
| but there is some overhead for that.
|
| Anyway, WL is an amazing ecosystem. I wish I could love the
| language.
| leephillips wrote:
| Our other giants in the history of programming language design
| have been far too modest. Imagine how APL might have changed the
| world if only it had been called Iverson Language. And nobody
| would still be using Word if the Knuth Typesetting Language were
| available.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Seems to come with a ~6% perf boost to BenchmarkReport[] vs 12.3
| as well.
| carry_bit wrote:
| On AMD with the MKL_DEBUG_CPU_TYPE hack still in place, it's
| about the same as 12.3 for me.
| zamadatix wrote:
| I wonder if that's the difference. I ran this on 5950X but
| didn't know about that when testing with 12.3 but setting it
| on 13.0 isn't changing my results. According to some
| searching on this env var it could be because MKL 2020 Update
| 1 and later don't require this to use the AVX2 kernels but I
| don't have my 12.3 install anymore to verify if it was using
| an older version.
| carry_bit wrote:
| Removing it doesn't change the results for me.
|
| I have a 5950X also; what are you getting for the benchmark
| result? I'm getting around 4.06.
| timmg wrote:
| Does anyone know how wolfram's language is implemented?
|
| I think that there is a small-ish language. And then a bunch of
| hand-coded libraries that do a lot of the heavy lifting.
|
| But I'm curious what that core language is like. I assume
| someone, somewhere has built an interpreter that is equivalent.
| Any ideas?
| wrnr wrote:
| https://github.com/corywalker/expreduce
| codekilla wrote:
| Not sure how much detail you are looking for, but I think
| essentially it is a term rewriting system.
| timmg wrote:
| Oh, interesting. One of the first results from Google turns
| up this: https://www.stephendiehl.com/posts/exotic02.html
|
| > The most widely used rewriting engines often sit at the
| heart of programs and languages used for logic programming,
| proof assistants and computer algebra systems. One of the
| most popular of these is Mathematica and the Wolfram
| language.
|
| Thanks!
| srvmshr wrote:
| For Mathematica, the graphical outputs and the vast pallette of
| functions is truly marvelous. IMO it feels a much superior
| product to Maple & MATLAB. If only they could make it bit more
| affordable to individual hobbyists. If I remember right, it is
| $200 per year (incl. tax). That does pinch the pockets a bit,
| specially if you are from a developing country.
|
| EDIT: A thought that comes to my mind is that Jetbrains products
| are similarly placed in pricing. But YoY costs actually go down.
| Furthermore, you are allowed to retain the last subscribed
| version which you paid in full. You can use the same license on
| all your machines/VMs. This is not the case with Wolfram
| products. The pricing stays the same if you want the point
| updates to be fetched. You cannot use the product if your
| subscription ends and individual licenses are limited to 1 (or
| 2?) machines. This does hurt!
| phonon wrote:
| > You cannot use the product if your subscription ends
|
| You can buy a perpetual home non-commercial license for $365.
|
| https://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/pricing/home-hobby/
| buescher wrote:
| There's a free tier of Wolfram Cloud. Mathematica is also
| bundled with the Raspberry Pi Raspbian distribution.
| srvmshr wrote:
| It is practically unusable to the point of being a joke on
| Raspberry pi. Mathematica still takes couple of seconds on my
| 8-core/64GB rig to compute a non-trivial expression,
| notwithstanding any manual simplification. There is a
| noticeable time to boot the program where you stare at the
| Wolfram Spikey. The benchmarks are brutal no matter which
| Raspberry pi you choose:
|
| 1. (Older artucle)
| https://forums.raspberrypi.com/viewtopic.php?t=248423
|
| 2. (Newer article in JP but web translation works decent):
| https://decafish.blog.ss-blog.jp/2020-07-19
| buescher wrote:
| Yes, with a rpi you are going back 15-20 years in
| performance. I don't know that I would call that unusable.
| People used Mathematica on the G5 PowerPC, which was in the
| same ballpark in the benchmarks you cite.
|
| So I guess... for hobbyists, it just depends on your hobby.
| kzrdude wrote:
| I'd be curious what qemu could do for running the RPI
| Mathematica on a regular desktop computer
| srvmshr wrote:
| I am okay with a G5-spec if everything else remained as
| they were 20 years ago. They haven't.
|
| Datasets have grown in size exponentially. You deal with
| images which are no longer few kilobytes. Window managers
| in the GUI have to paint over a much larger display area
| even if you consider whitespace. To do a hobby project
| like for e.g build a toy spam-filter or a toy classifier,
| the prompt to execution takes over 6 minutes on a really
| tiny model. I don't see why this hobby project angle
| seems viable either. Hence, why I said its unusable
| practically.
| buescher wrote:
| It's also very, very easy to run into compute limits on the
| free tiers of Wolfram Cloud and even Wolfram Alpha.
| kgwgk wrote:
| The Wolfram engine can also be used for free:
| https://www.wolfram.com/engine/
|
| It can be used as Jupyter kernel:
| https://github.com/WolframResearch/WolframLanguageForJupyter
| pwr-electronics wrote:
| IMO modern MATLAB with the right toolboxes is much more capable
| than Mathematica. Pricing is similar.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| imo, the problem with Matlab is that Julia is better in
| pretty much every way. even numpy has managed to outclass it.
| 7thaccount wrote:
| This is not my experience.
|
| Mathematica has a LOT more integrated into the base product.
| Matlab requires a toolbox for nearly everything and many
| toolboxes cost more than a Mathematica license. I enjoy
| Mathematica, but find Matlab to be inferior to Python
| development and very expensive.
| sgillen wrote:
| I think Matlab is starting to realize this, at least at the
| institutional level they are starting to offer all the
| toolboxes for a fixed price (much much lower than buying
| all the boxes individually)
| pwr-electronics wrote:
| > many toolboxes cost more than
|
| They're all priced the same for home use.
|
| https://www.mathworks.com/store/link/products/home/ML
| srvmshr wrote:
| MATLAB individual license for base product is actually lower,
| but toolboxes can cost a fortune. Student/Home version does
| not have several features inbuilt which have to be bought
| separately. Also the symbolic math support is dodgy. If I had
| to do Numpy type of operations only, I will take Numpy over
| MATLAB because its open source and free.
| sgillen wrote:
| Symbolic math in matlab is vastly inferior to Mathematica,
| and the deep learning and reinforcement learning toolboxes
| are vastly inferior to the offerings in python.
|
| However for control system design or digital signal
| processing I think matlab is superior to both, I also think
| the matlab IDE is severely underated.
|
| These are just from my experiences, I'm sure each of these
| languages have other applications where they are superior
| to the other too.
|
| I also speak with privilege as someone who has access to
| all these packages for free so..
| phkahler wrote:
| >> IMO modern MATLAB with the right toolboxes is much more
| capable than Mathematica.
|
| ...depending what you want to do. Anything symbolic is
| probably not a great fit for Matlab.
| MisterBiggs wrote:
| Never done symbolic math in Mathematica but I have done it
| extensively in SymPy and Matlab. The symbolic toolbox is
| surprisingly powerful and performant compared to SymPy and
| I've never really been left wanting more.
| nynx wrote:
| Mathematica is amazing, but I wish it were open-source.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> Mathematica is amazing, but I wish it were open-source.
|
| OSS or not, I fear for its future after Stephen Wolfram passes.
| Hopefully he has a good succession plan that's focused on the
| product and users rather than shareholders.
| throway453sde wrote:
| Mathematica is what it is because its design comes from a
| single brain. It does not matter which group or an individual
| takes over next, it will not be the same. Wish Stephen lives
| long enough until humans have solved aging.
| kgwgk wrote:
| I imagine that the company will remain privately held and
| will be controlled by the Wolfram Foundation or something
| like that.
| maliker wrote:
| As another commenter pointed out they are pretty adamant about
| not going open source [1].
|
| But then later they walked it back a little and claimed they
| are "like open source" [2]. Funny there are 12 reasons for
| being closed source and only 6 for being "like" open source.
| And the reasons they're like open source are pretty weak. The
| first one (free use) has a lot of restrictions like the way
| their cloud product locks you out of your files 60 days after
| they're created.
|
| It's cool what Wolfam has achieved, but it's hard to justify
| going with a closed tool these days with all the interest in
| open science and the capabilities that are now available in the
| open source world.
|
| [1] https://blog.wolfram.com/2019/04/02/why-wolfram-tech-isnt-
| op... [2] https://blog.wolfram.com/2021/11/30/six-reasons-why-
| the-wolf...
| carry_bit wrote:
| If only they had a cash cow, like how Microsoft has Windows and
| Office, so development of the language could be subsidized.
| steerablesafe wrote:
| The main cash cow of Mathematica is the library, not
| necessarily the language. They could certainly make the
| language more open, while keeping the secret sauce in the
| library. They could also open up some core parts of the
| library too.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| Why bother? You can use open source alternatives if that's
| all you want.
| throway453sde wrote:
| In one of the vidoe Stephen Wolfram said he had discussed with
| RMS and was not convinced. I could not find what was the core
| argument. I like to know what his core argument is apart from
| making enough money to continue the work.
| carry_bit wrote:
| There's this: https://blog.wolfram.com/2019/04/02/why-
| wolfram-tech-isnt-op...
| daniel-thompson wrote:
| > 9. Open source doesn't bring major tech innovation to
| market
|
| Linux kernel, LLVM, Blender, TensorFlow, Stockfish,
| Firefox, etc etc
| mhh__ wrote:
| Statements like this are always biased by the perception
| of the writer i.e. you're walking into a no true scotsman
| here unless Wolfram is literally just too ignorant to
| remember that his business is likely reliant in some way
| upon open source.
| analog31 wrote:
| It'd be interesting to analyze how the Python ecosystem
| stacks up against the points made in this blog. Naturally I
| don't have an insider's appreciation for what it takes to
| develop and maintain a language, so I can't really answer
| them myself.
| throwaway984393 wrote:
| Python is a good example of how open source can become
| quite problematic. A lot of the Python ecosystem,
| including the packages, is a confusing and slightly
| broken jumble. The lack of leadership/organization from
| the core group has led to problems.
|
| But what he's missing in his points is that Mathematica
| is led by a company! _They_ get to design it, _they_ get
| to organize it, so _they_ have full control of it still.
| Look at Terraform: it 's horrible usability-wise and has
| tons of limitations. If it was open source, it would have
| had auto-import from day one, adding a version or
| depends_on to modules would've happened from day one, and
| something like CDK probably would have already been built
| in, so Pulumi probably wouldn't exist either. But since
| Hashicorp controls it, it only works the way they want,
| in spite of open source.
|
| As long as Stephen's company is developing Mathematica,
| they can maintain full control (of their distribution of
| it), and it's extremely unlikely for any fork to be
| successful.
| analog31 wrote:
| That's a valid point, something I've read a lot about.
| I'm a "scientific" programmer, so my usage is similar to
| how I used Mathematica (20+ years ago), at my desk or in
| the lab. I keep wondering to myself: Is Python really
| such a mess? Are the problems related to use cases that
| don't apply to me?
|
| I also wonder (could download the trial version and find
| out) how Mathematica would be for things like hardware
| testing and lab automation. That's more of a side issue
| than directly related to the points of the blog post.
|
| But you're probably right about trying to fork
| Mathematica. Python may owe its success to forking
| _ideas_ from Mathematica, Matlab, etc., without vying
| head to head with the mother ship.
|
| Being a company also has its drawbacks, such as having to
| invest a certain amount of effort into marketing-driven
| development such as trying to keep people buying
| upgrades. But maybe a company with a BDFL at the top of
| it can avoid that issue.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Python isn't really a mess (certainly less messy than
| MATLAB IMO) but the issue is that many practitioners are
| basically thrown at the language without any real caution
| or care.
|
| A modern python (e.g. anaconda?) distribution is a pretty
| formidable tool (for some things I'd definitely take
| Mathematica any day, but I don't really code in
| mathematica vs. sketch) - the people using that
| distribution however may also not know anything about
| good practice. Python unfortunately is far too allowing
| of this, too, so some scripts are a genuinely hell. I'm a
| physics student currently working as a programmer, 2/5
| lines of code I see in my department would be enough to
| request changes from a patch. I daydream about teaching
| them but that's never going to happen.
|
| At work we actually developed a functional language (nee
| DSL) specifically to funnel people down exactly the
| places we want.
| cycomanic wrote:
| If you think the python ecosystem is a mess I trust you
| have never used matlab and its toolboxes.
|
| Also in the context of numerical/scientific programming I
| don't understand what is the issue with the packaging
| system. It's been working fine for myself and many others
| I know of.
| [deleted]
| n-e-w wrote:
| I've enjoyed developing in the language professionally for many
| years. Truly, few things allow as rapid prototyping with such
| efficacy for so few lines across so many domains in a unified
| interface. There are some brilliantly innovative things across
| the language and, once you really get into the weeds of how to
| write efficient functional code, some of the things you can do
| are incredible.
|
| Two things, though. Firstly, they are very stubborn on condoning
| a community to coalesce around the language other than through
| 'official' Wolfram channels. This comes from the big man himself,
| no doubt. As much as they want to drive adoption by coming up
| with (what they think are) "cool" sounding initiatives, they will
| never get devs to break from their core workflows and tools to do
| things the Wolfram way. There is no first-class support for
| daily-driver editing (vscode, emacs etc etc) for large-scale
| projects (other than an ancient eclipse package). Brenton Bostick
| at Wolfram has done some truly first class work in closing this
| gap though.
|
| Secondly, this is the first major release that is a bit 'ho-hum'
| for a while. And it's reflective of the fact that whatever
| Stephen's pet interests are at a particular point in time will
| get attention in a release. For example, V11 was huge on Machine
| Learning and AI...now it barely gets a mention or extra
| development. Because SW is so focused on his Physics Project,
| this will likley be the case for a while.
|
| To anyone thinking about using the language -- dive in. It's
| brilliant and expressive and _fun_. It 's satisfying. You can do
| cool stuff. It just becomes very difficult when you want to scale
| it.
|
| Anyone from WRI reading this: please, please, please let the
| community develop organically and support the toolchain everyone
| has wanted for so long. Or don't. But you need us more than we
| need you. Oh, and simplify the product line -- what a nightmare
| for newcomers to navigate. :-)
| disentanglement wrote:
| Perhaps I can add a counterpoint before anybody gets too
| excited and spends too much money on a tool they might not
| enjoy.
|
| Having used Mathematica quite a bit for doing symbolic
| computation, my opinion on it is pretty much opposite to yours.
| While the extensive standard library is certainly nice, I think
| that the programming language used to access it is one of the
| worst programming languages in the world - certainly the worst
| I have ever used. I have never seen any other programming
| language where the basic scoping and evaluation rules are so
| badly designed and error-prone as in Mathematica.
| ModernMech wrote:
| Can you elaborate as to what you dislike about scoping and
| eval rules? Asking as a language designer.
| disentanglement wrote:
| The main issue with the evaluation rules is that
| Mathematica doesn't distinguish between creating a symbolic
| expression and evaluating code. That is if I type
| f[x]
|
| and the function `f` is not defined, Mathematica will not
| give me an error but instead just assume that I meant to
| create a symbolic expression. If you know some Lisp, just
| imagine that everything came with an implicit `quote` which
| would automatically get invoked whenever a unbound variable
| or function would we encountered.
|
| That issue alone has caused me so many errors simply from
| mistyping some function or variable name. For simple
| expressions, such bugs are pretty obvious to spot but if
| the same occurs deep inside a chain of function calls, this
| often lead to completely wrong results because the bug got
| masked by some other manipulations I did on the result of
| the function call.
|
| Of course, there are tons of hacks and ad-hoc workarounds
| in Mathematica to get around this (imho fundamentally
| broken) behaviour to the tune of "just stick another
| `Evaluate` here" or "just change the function definition
| from `g[x_]` to `g[x_?NumericQ]` to call the function only
| when the argument is numeric and otherwise leave it
| unevaluated".
|
| The situation with the scoping rules is not much better.
| Consider for instance the following code: y
| = 1; expression = Module[{y},1+y]; (* Module creates
| a new scope in which y is unbound *)
|
| Can you guess what happens if I print out `expression` now?
| Print[expression] 1+y$4066
|
| Yes, Mathematica has just renamed our variable. If now we
| wanted to set `y` in our expression to some concrete value,
| of course the obvious thing to try doesn't work, but just
| gives me some bullshit:
| Print[ReplaceAll[expression, y->10]] 10+y$4066
|
| These are all only some simple examples of why doing any
| kind of metaprogramming in Mathematica just sucks.
| nextaccountic wrote:
| > and the function `f` is not defined, Mathematica will
| not give me an error but instead just assume that I meant
| to create a symbolic expression.
|
| I've dreamed about creating a language like this, but had
| to give up because it makes diagnostics impossible in
| case o typos and things like that..
|
| My best bet now is to have some quote syntax to make a
| symbol stand for an abstract symbol, like
|
| 1 + x -- this sums 1 with x, and errors if x is unbound
|
| 1 + 'x -- this is an abstract expression, doesn't care if
| x is bound or not
|
| Like lisp, except with some first class support to things
| like derive(1 + 'x, 'x), and, well, every operator needs
| to respect quoted symbols.. even if + were a user-defined
| operator or function, 1 + 'x needs to return (the AST) 1
| + 'x. I suppose this is the same as Mathematica, except
| that Mathematica doesn't need quoting
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Global scope (really global -- even between windows) is the
| default and the encapsulation tools are not particularly
| easy or convenient to use and not heavily promoted in the
| example material.
|
| This leads to a dynamic where anyone without the CS
| background to recognize the foot-gun and the discipline to
| disarm it winds up with awful spaghetti code and the all-
| to-familiar consequences: a big blob of unmaintainable
| mystery code that becomes more and more difficult to modify
| until all project time is spent merely keeping it working
| rather than improving upon it.
|
| We might laugh about this kind of newbie mistake here on
| HN, but even extremely intelligent people can't be experts
| at everything and the sheer number of physicist-hours and
| mathematician-hours I've seen needlessly flushed down this
| particular toilet is really quite unfortunate.
| pfortuny wrote:
| Thanks for this comment. Have the same experience at a
| Maths Department.
|
| Each run of some specific code is "ouch, we must try and
| see when we have the time to understand how it works and
| how each error is handled." Just because it is soooo
| difficult to properly write a module.
| ezequiel-garzon wrote:
| "I've enjoyed developing in the language professionally for
| many years."
|
| And I've enjoyed your wonderful post, thank you. HN can be
| truly amazing. I know, I know, upvotes are for that... 'Tis the
| season, or something.
| leephillips wrote:
| I looked all over their website, but could't find a link to
| download the source for the Wolfram Language so I can compile
| it. Do you have a link?
| the-dude wrote:
| Aren't you already _perfectly_ aware this is not open source?
| From your profile I must assume you are.
| leephillips wrote:
| Why do you say that?
| the-dude wrote:
| Because apparently you are writing a book about Julia. I
| assume people who write books about a language which are
| also in vogue in the scientific community, they are aware
| of the eco-system of said community. Mathematica is not
| exactly a new kid on the block.
|
| Why don't you answer the question?
| leephillips wrote:
| The answer is that I did not know, and that's why I
| asked. Mathematica is not a big part of the scientific
| research world as far as I'm aware. I don't know anyone
| who uses it in physics research, for example. The last
| time I played around with Mathematica was in graduate
| school before Linux existed, when closed source and
| proprietary solutions were the norm. Back then I don't
| think there was anything like the Wolfram Language
| independent of the Mathematica product. So when I heard
| that this language now existed, I wondered if it was open
| and, therefore, something that might be interesting to
| use in research. From your tone I suspect that you won't
| believe any of this. I'll leave it up to your fevered
| imagination to divine how much I care about that.
| carry_bit wrote:
| The "Wolfram Language" name is essentially just a
| rebranding of Mathematica to highlight the fact that it
| does way more than just math now.
| trymas wrote:
| Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but Wolfram products
| are proprietary (read - you need to buy the license or
| subscribe to it), just like MATLAB.
| leephillips wrote:
| If it's not open source then it's a non-starter, it doesn't
| matter how cool it is. This is not an ideological free
| software stance, it's a recognition that science has
| embraced the utility of open source tools and rejected
| black boxes. It's essential for reproducibility and
| transparency in research. It's no longer enough to provide
| your code in a paper supplement or on GitHub; the entire
| chain must be available for inspection, including the
| language itself.
|
| EDIT: One common exception to this principle is the use of
| proprietary C or Fortran compilers for high performance.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| Does this mean SAS will finally die?
| kzrdude wrote:
| They tried to get it out for freeon the raspi but I guess
| the uptake was really quite low. Either way the program
| for that has basically ended.
| https://www.wolfram.com/raspberry-pi/
| leephillips wrote:
| I don't see any source there. Was is open source or just
| beer-free?
| Smaug123 wrote:
| It is not and has never been open-source. In fact they
| wrote https://blog.wolfram.com/2019/04/02/why-wolfram-
| tech-isnt-op... .
| agentdrek wrote:
| I'm aghast at this point:
| https://blog.wolfram.com/2019/04/02/why-wolfram-tech-
| isnt-op...
|
| The blog post was probably literally written in and
| hosted entirely on open source software which were highly
| innovative at their earlier stages and continue to be
| highly innovative. This is a very self-serving
| presentation of an idea. Also, I officially dislike the
| word innovation.
| throway453sde wrote:
| Its a good thing that it did not take off. Using
| something for free without source code is the bad thing
| that could happen to pi wrt to its mission.
| carry_bit wrote:
| The Pi is built on a foundation of binary blobs. As I
| read it, https://www.raspberrypi.org/about/ is a lot more
| focused on free-as-beer than free-as-speech.
| kzrdude wrote:
| They are giving a lot, I respect them a lot for that.
| They are practical about it too, of course, compromises
| have to be made everywhere.
| agambrahma wrote:
| I recently got into it and it is exhilarating.
|
| There's so much to it that it's easy to get lost. I don't even
| care for the "deep math" parts of it, it has _so many_ APIs for
| real-world data that "plain old exploration" is super-fun with
| it.
|
| It'll also be great for anyone looking for "creative coding"
| (typically Processing.js etc is used for this), since the
| Graphics abilities are so quick and easy.
|
| It has "a different shape" w.r.t. the languages and tools that
| are commonly used for programming, but it is a beast.
|
| Highly recommend to anyone curious.
|
| Also, https://www.wolfram.com/language/elementary-
| introduction/2nd... (free to read online, though I read it on
| paper) was helpful to me, browse through it to get a feel for
| what it's like to use it.
| carry_bit wrote:
| I've heard they're working on creating an uncurated paclet
| repository, and the new paclet tools would appear to be the
| first step of that. Once that is complete we should finally
| have something similar npm.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-16 23:01 UTC)