On 4/2/12 11:49 AM, Jan Pöschko wrote:
On Monday, April 2, 2012 4:01:58 PM UTC+2, rjf wrote:On Mar 31, 1:13 pm, Volker Braun <vbraun.n...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, March 31, 2012 7:11:23 PM UTC+1, kcrisman wrote: > > > therefore lack the “structural beauty” of the Mathematica® language. > > Well-placed irony quotation marks! I doubt that he means it to be ironic. I really don't want to start a Mathematica vs Sage (or Python) discussion here. Actually, I didn't mean "structural beauty" ironically, but probably somewhat differently than you think: I was thinking about the (tree-like) structure in which expressions are represented in Mathematica and the general beauty of functional programming languages. (Of course I know Python can be used in functional ways, too, but would you agree that Mathematica has a more functional spirit, as a whole? With all its flaws, that is.) Disclaimer: I love Sage /and/ Mathematica.
+1. I used MMA a lot before Sage, and the consistency of the MMA language and the simple lisp-like form of its expressions were things that I missed a lot.
Jason -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
