[thinline]

I see there are lots of skeptics here. Well, as a developer with kids of 11 and 15 (who are not particularly attracted to the idea of programming, in general), I can say that the Mathematica environment/Wolfram Language is both fantastic and effective. So great that I'm willing to plug it despite not being on Wolfram's payroll.

After several years of trying to use this or that other language with the kids in an attempt to stir up some sort of longer term interest and to get them to begin thinking in a problem-solving way, the Wolfram Language is the only one that's managed to produce results and hold their interest.

Two of the most key features of the Wolfram Language, IMO, are the very high level of abstraction available through the many built-in functions and, as a result, the quick feedback given to the user. When I compare the reams of code that must be written in any other language to achieve only a fraction of what a Wolfram Language one-liner does, I cringe at the thought of trying to convince someone (who's point isn't to become a developer, but to simply find a solution to a problem) that they need to man-up and type a book before they can expect any appreciable results.

The book, An Elementary Introduction to the Wolfram Language, mentioned in the article, is also an amazing resource. It begins with no expectations of prior programming experience and progresses at a decent pace with captivating examples throughout.

So, yeah, I'd like an non-commercial (remember that there are free tiers and products) environment+language that's equal (in terms of being very suitable for kids up to domain experts) to what's available from Wolfram, but from what I've seen, there is nothing that comes close. Sure, people will point to the various notebook type environments out there, but these have got quite a ways to go before they reach the breadth and slickness of Wolfram's offerings.

[throwaway729]

> So, yeah, I'd like an non-commercial (remember that there are free tiers and products) environment+language that's equal

This will never happen I fear. And IMO it's not even a matter of interface issues -- environment, language, etc. -- although matching those would take a lot of effort as well.

But more importantly, I think a lot of people massively under-estimate the sheer number of best-in-class implementations of important algorithms that are locked up in Mathematica's source code. I try to avoid Mathematica whenever an alternative exists, but in a lot of cases there just isn't an alternative. Especially as you get closer to "real" mathematical capabilities.

[thr0waway1239]

I have heard something similar to this sentiment expressed many times. Can someone explain how this turned out to be the case? Especially considering, math is one of those subjects which will tremendously benefit from being unlocked from a paid software's source code.

[programnature]

Its an interesting question. One reason is Wolfram is extremely talented at language design, which is necessary to build an artifact of this size without self-immolating. Another is that it is a commercial company following a plan. A third is that few people have learned the lessons of Mathematica enough to apply them.

[throwaway729]

> One reason is Wolfram is extremely talented at language design

It's always a matter of taste when it comes to language design, but I'd have to disagree with this assessment ;-)

> which is necessary to build an artifact of this size without self-immolating

Well, that's certainly not the case. Plenty of huge software artifacts of very impressive quality have been built by non-language-designers.

> Another is that it is a commercial company following a plan

This is certainly true. Or rather, several plans, all of which intersect at common mathematical sub-questions. So then the entire company can leverage effort that's been poured into those components.

> A third is that few people have learned the lessons of Mathematica enough to apply them

Nah. I think the third reason is that Wolfram hires excellent hackers who are also excellent mathematicians. He hires a lot of them. And he puts them to work on the intersectional capabilities I mentioned above.

(Disclaimer: pure conjecture. I've never worked at Wolfram)

[carapace]

Go read up on the history of the company. Wolfram knew what he wanted very early on and pursued it with relentless focus and drive.

Others have tried to catch up, but they can't match the output of the engine he built to power Mathematica's development.

Frankly, it seems strange to me that he's not considered a folk hero on HN.

[jdironman]

Pursued it with relentless focus and drive

This is what separates successful from struggling.

[carapace]

Nah.

Many relentlessly focused and driven people have failed miserably, and many vague and sluggish people have succeeded beyond all expectation.

Take me, for instance. I waffled along one step ahead of destitution for thirty years and then got an amazing job without trying even slightly. Now, I'm on track to retire before I'm fifty. Everyone who knows me calls me lazy! What have I done? Why me? I just give generously to charity and keep my head down.

I've found a crucial skill for a happy life is to carefully avoid pointless effort.