[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.