Thu, 5 Feb 2015 08:08:54 -0800 (PST)

Related articles |
---|

[2 earlier articles] |

Re: Choosing a parser for Mathematica input haberg-news@telia.com (Hans Aberg) (2010-11-09) |

Re: Choosing a parser for Mathematica input drkirkby@gmail.com (David Kirkby) (2010-11-09) |

Re: Choosing a parser for Mathematica input winkzhang@gmail.com (Wink Zhang) (2010-11-13) |

Re: Choosing a parser for Mathematica input idbaxter@semdesigns.com (Ira Baxter) (2010-11-26) |

Re: Choosing a parser for Mathematica input drkirkby@gmail.com (David Kirkby) (2010-11-26) |

Re: Choosing a parser for Mathematica input drkirkby@gmail.com (David Kirkby) (2010-11-27) |

Re: Choosing a parser for Mathematica input fateman@gmail.com (2015-02-05) |

parsability (was: Choosing a parser for Mathematica input) gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2015-02-06) |

Re: Choosing a parser for Mathematica input rljacobson@gmail.com (Robert Jacobson) (2015-02-06) |

Re: parsability and human factors derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk (Derek M. Jones) (2015-02-07) |

Re: parsability and human factors gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2015-02-08) |

Re: parsability robin51@dodo.com.au (Robin Vowels) (2015-02-09) |

Re: parsability DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2015-02-08) |

[2 later articles] |

From: | fateman@gmail.com |

Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |

Date: | Thu, 5 Feb 2015 08:08:54 -0800 (PST) |

Organization: | Compilers Central |

References: | 10-11-017 |

Keywords: | parse, syntax |

Posted-Date: | 05 Feb 2015 13:29:31 EST |

Hi, comp.compiler guys.

I came across this thread while googling for something I wrote;

found this thread with stuff written about me.. It's a bit stale but

if David Kirby wants a Mathematica clone, he should look at Mathics.

Regarding the difficult of parsing the Mathematica language, he misses

the point, I think. By the way, after conducting a worldwide search

for a better name for the language-minus-the-math-library, Stephen

Wolfram chose, tada, "The Wolfram Language".

Anyway the difficulty isn't parsing x //f to get f(x). It is in the

separation of lexical and syntactic uses of characters like "." which have

multiple uses.

a.3 is Dot[a,3]. a .3 is Times[0.3, a]. And the difficulty with using

"space"

or merely adjacency for multiplication is not resolved by asserting that

mathematicians use it all the time.

I have written papers and email in which I am critical of Mathematica.

I have also written programs that are partial implementations of that program

but with illustrative changes showing (in my view) better design decisions.

Some of these decisions are mathematical rather than language issues.

Being (threatened or actually) sued by Wolfram is not so unusual. It does add

some perspective to the fellow. See for example,

http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/wolfram/

oh, about the name for the language, see

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/sage-devel/egofart/sage-devel/VEVW

bpDLc_g/cI0iIhIk7-AJ

for my own acronymic juggling, which explains the name EGOFART.

Post a followup to this message

Return to the
comp.compilers page.

Search the
comp.compilers archives again.