|
|
|
|
|
by pc
6255 days ago
|
|
Mathematica's speed (or lack thereof) rarely bothers me; personally, limitations caused by not having the turtles go all the way down tends to be a bigger issue. With that said, I find the lengths to which Mathematica takes pattern-matching fascinating. There's something beautiful about having Fold[f, 0, Range[1, 5]]
evaluate to f[f[f[f[f[0, 1], 2], 3], 4], 5]
|
|
It would be beautiful, however, if NDSolve were implemented in the language itself. If the speed is sufficient for numerical code, then it should be sufficient to write that numerical code in the Mathematica language, and rely on compilation for a speed up. But that path hasn't been taken. While the compiler is immature, it seems that as a company it would make sense to adopt this strategy rather than relying mostly on a monolithic kernel built in C.
Circa MMA 2, Mathematica's kernel code was about 350,000 lines of C, whereas Maple had a Kernel of only about 20,000, with most of the routines written in Maple itself.
Pattern matching is wonderfully beautiful as a core concept, though.