On Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:00:10 PM UTC+1, rjf wrote:
>
> To address this issue more specifically, the complexity of a grammar does
> not reflect the entire complexity of a language.
>
yes, i wasn't implying that this is the solve measurement, but i think it
is part of it. mathematica's gra
rjf writes:
> Now about that "natural language" stuff. People have proposed to do this for
> 50 years or so, on and off. That is, use natural language for programming.
> COBOL (1961). Lots of other ideas, too. Warren Teitelman's thesis work on
> DWIM. Linguistics specialists with any number of
On Sunday, March 11, 2012 3:44:22 AM UTC-7, Harald Schilly wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, March 10, 2012 2:53:25 PM UTC+1, rjf wrote:
>>
>>
>> It is not a simple language.
>
>
> I'm sure you all know more about this than me. Is there a common way to
> "measure" this? What I'm thinking about are th
You know, Wolfram has an enormous ego. He thinks he revolutionized science.
He thinks he invented computer algebra systems. He thinks he has designed
the world's best programming language.
3 strikes.
If you want to look for a simple language, you could look at ones aimed at
simple people (childr
kcrisman writes:
> Incidentally, I hear that Siri uses W|A for some of "her"
> interactions. No, I don't have a reference.
Well, Wolfram and others did mention it on the Reddit thread you linked.
-Keshav
Join us in #sagemath on irc.freenode.net !
--
To post to this group, send an email
> > But I still maintain that Stephen Wolfram will never definitively make
> > Mathematica the world's easiest to learn language.
>
> > I take exception to what he said:
>
> > "It'll probably be related to my goal in the next year or two of making
> > Mathematica definitively the world's easiest t
On Saturday, March 10, 2012 2:53:25 PM UTC+1, rjf wrote:
>
>
> It is not a simple language.
I'm sure you all know more about this than me. Is there a common way to
"measure" this? What I'm thinking about are those grammar dependency trees.
>From my personal experience and looking at those gr
On 10 March 2012 13:53, rjf wrote:
>
> If you want a free open-source implementation of the language (without most
> of the mathematical commands)
> you can use the one I wrote in Lisp. Mock MMA..
>
> It is not a simple language. One does not often start with a complicated
> language and add to
If you want a free open-source implementation of the language (without most
of the mathematical commands)
you can use the one I wrote in Lisp. Mock MMA..
It is not a simple language. One does not often start with a complicated
language and add to it and make
it simpler.
RJF
On Monday, March
On 7 March 2012 05:34, Keshav Kini wrote:
> "Dr. David Kirkby" writes:
>> Well, I think Wolfram Research have a VERY long way to go before
>> Mathematica is the easiest to learn language.
>
> I don't know about that. Mathematica is not extremely difficult.
I did not say it is "extreamly difficul
"Dr. David Kirkby" writes:
> Well, I think Wolfram Research have a VERY long way to go before
> Mathematica is the easiest to learn language.
I don't know about that. Mathematica is not extremely difficult. It's
kind of lisp-like but with a lot of syntactic sugar. If you want, you
can more or les
11 matches
Mail list logo
