| > I love Wolfram stuff. I'm with you 100% here, but I'm also 100% with sibling jiggawatts. To me, Mathematica is a computation environment that conveys a Lisp Machine feeling of "the machine and I are working on this problem". You know, that "assembling things live in the sky" Lisp feeling (Yegge's phrase, not mine). The only other computation environment that is right there en par in flexibility and conveyance of the same trippy feeling is, of course, Emacs. The company can still make money from academic and professional licensing and support contracts, and everyone else gets to have access to an awesome thinking tool as a matter of fact. They've already gone that direction a bit with the Raspberry release, what's left now is just the final push. So, if Stephen Wolfram ever reads this: Open source Mathematica and it will have a chance at immortality. Just like Lisp and just like Emacs, and the people will rejoice. Disclaimer: I started with Mathematica 4.0 at age 14 (a pirate copy too, sorry!), turned on by that marvellous column in Quantum. But I was put off precisely due to the proprietary nature, and switched to C and Lisp. Consequently I became a CS guy rather than a Physics guy, because C and Lisp were accessible early on, while Mathematica wasn't (legitimately). |
Agreed. That's the main thing that tends to get lost when people make comparisons between MATLAB and Mathematica. Mathematica is conceptually elegant and often just a joy to work with as an intellectual tool. Its core problem is just that it isn't more widely available. MATLAB on the other hand is just an inelegant, obvious implementation of a numerical environment. Its strength is just the variety of toolkits you can license, but once your domains get equivalent open source toolkits, there's no reason not to bail on MATLAB.
>I started with Mathematica 4.0 at age 14 (a pirate copy too, sorry!)
The nice thing these days is that the full version of Mathematica is available for free on the Raspberry Pi. Wolfram deserves some kudos for that.