Wolfram Language and Mathematica Version 15, AI Assistant, Symbolic Music, More
121 points
5 hours ago
| 9 comments
| writings.stephenwolfram.com
| HN
steve1977
20 minutes ago
[-]
I always compare the difference between Mathematica/Wolfram Language and Python to the difference between Classical Latin and English.

I don't really like English from a linguistic point of view (as a non-native speaker). It's a hodgepodge of other languages and has so many exceptions, it's not very elegant. But it's so ubiquitous and useful that one basically has to know English today.

On the other hand, Latin is beautiful and pure. There's more rules, but very few exceptions. But unless you study catholic theology or something along those lines, it's basically useless.

Which one maps to Wolfram Language and which one to Python is probably obviously.

reply
Lucasoato
5 hours ago
[-]
I’ve used Mathematica at university, it’s so great! Creating fractals, animations and so on is so easy and intuitive.

The problem though is that Wolfram is a walled garden. When you think about integrating it in an enterprise environment, you get hit by such high costs, it stops making sense. Imagine if they open sourced it, I feel like their products have so much utility, buried deep down Wolfram ecosystem and conventions.

reply
alok-g
1 hour ago
[-]
Here are some alternatives (some internally use free Wolfram engine):

Reimplementation in Rust: https://github.com/ad-si/Woxi

WLJS Notebook: https://wljs.io

VS Code extension: https://github.com/vanbaalon/wolfbook

reply
brudgers
2 hours ago
[-]
Wolfram is $4000/seat for a perpetual commercial license with support. [1] $4000 will only buy a middling Mac Tool tool chest…and not the tools to put in it.

[1] a personal perpetual license is only $400.

reply
nwatson
12 minutes ago
[-]
Cost goes down significantly for subsequent years personal. Currently at less than $200 yearly.
reply
orochimaaru
4 hours ago
[-]
It doesn't make sense even for academia. Reproducibility is an issue and as we've seen with recent fraudulent claims in major publications - it's what is going to be used for verification of research.

Many years back while in grad school I could not reproduce a result from a paper. Thankfully they had provided the data as public but not the code. I emailed the authors and got some matlab code back. My university didn't have a matlab subscription. Octave saved me there since the syntax is similar.

But with something like mathematica and the price of it you will never be able to have a wide verification of the result if the software is not free.

Also, a lot of things in industry gain traction first in academia (especially math tools). So unless academic traction is dealt with mathematica's headway in industry will remain limited. They are still a profitable company. So I'm guessing there are deep pocketed clients who purchase the tooling.

reply
kridsdale1
2 hours ago
[-]
The situation you’re describing is probably why Python is the defacto language of Machine Learning to this day.
reply
coliveira
3 hours ago
[-]
Mathematica has a lot of clients in math and engineering. Traditionally these clients are not so concerned about software engineering issues you mention. What Mathematica offers also makes sense for small firms with a few engineers, because they can leverage their vast amount of ready to use functions and libraries. But I agree that for medium to large size companies it stops making sense.
reply
geor9e
1 hour ago
[-]
I loved Mathematica. I was so sad about having to use Python math packages in industry.
reply
Joel_Mckay
4 hours ago
[-]
Wolfram did have Visual Studio API integration at one point, and it was useful reducing algorithmic symbolic design complexity. However, it was mostly the academically controversial assumptions that Mathematica makes that undermined its credibility in many faculties.

For example, when digging into GNU Octave you will find many of its libraries were built on peer reviewed legacy code provably reproducible with prior aerospace published works.

The problem with closed source academic programs isn't features or even quality, but rather one of traceable Metrology and scientific rigor. =3

reply
breezybottom
3 hours ago
[-]
Most scientific fields have no problem using SAS or STATA or other black box code. I don't think that explains Mathematica's problems.
reply
Joel_Mckay
3 hours ago
[-]
Indeed, likely negatively correlated with other behavioral phenomena =3

https://www.statista.com/chart/4111/do-europeans-wash-their-...

reply
coliveira
3 hours ago
[-]
I'm aways surprised that there's no open source language that provides everything you get with Wolfram language. For example, the level of pattern matching you can use when defining functions, as well as the high level of functional composition. It is like having a mix of APL, Lisp, and Prolog that is very productive to use.
reply
zozbot234
56 minutes ago
[-]
From a strict PL perspective, the Wolfram/Mathematica language is rather based on a term rewriting paradigm. The languages Maude, Pure and TXL would be examples of something that's broadly comparable but more generic. In general, it turns out to be a fairly niche paradigm that's not very useful outside of symbolic computing itself, or related fields such as modeling of PL syntax and compiler internals.
reply
raegis
58 minutes ago
[-]
> "...the level of pattern matching you can use when defining functions, as well as the high level of functional composition..."

This sounds like your average functional programming language. The Scicloj community is the first thing to come to mind (but I assume they don't do symbolic algebra/calculus like Mathematica does), but I don't know what you're specifically missing.

reply
nextaccountic
58 minutes ago
[-]
Wolfram language is the easy part to implement

Its standard library is almost impossible to reproduce in its enterity

If those libraries were like regular code that got published to Github or something like that.. like pypi or npm or crates.io or whatever. And if mathematica had a lean standard library. It would be very feasible to implement a clone that's basically compatible

I mean. Depending on just wolfram rather than random open source contributors has benefits, for example it's more resistant to supply chain attacks. Indeed the npm model is not good. But, it is open, and that's what enabled for example deno and bun to have some compatibility with node

reply
abacadaba
25 minutes ago
[-]
kimi reproduce this standard lib, make no mistakes
reply
TheRealPomax
2 hours ago
[-]
IT doesn't even need to be open source, a walled garden that you can afford is perfectly fine. Someone's going to find the cracks in the wall anyway.

But a walled garden that costs $400 for personal use (we're ignoring yearly licensing, because f that noise) is utter nonsense, and the clearest sign you have no idea how to sell and then upsell products to users over the course of several years.

reply
stblack
5 hours ago
[-]
I'm a huge fan of Mathematica; I've been a subscriber for many years. There's much to love about the product, but its AI assistant isn't among them.

Claude Caude is much better at Mathematica than Wolfram's own AI assistant. I think they flat-out acknowledge the very limited abilities of Mathematica's AI assistant in this version 15 announcement.

The Wolfram AI assistant is so bad I unsubscribed from it. By the sounds of it, a basic AI assistant is offered included with subscriptions now. I feel it's borderline criminal they were charging for their hallucinatory AI assistant in the past.

reply
raincole
3 hours ago
[-]
Honestly I've found even Gemini Flash is better than Wolfram assistant...

But that's fine. Mathematica client supports openrouter as LLM provider anyway so we can use whatever we want.

reply
a-dub
2 hours ago
[-]
symbolic music features are interesting! they should add chroma!
reply
sbrother
2 hours ago
[-]
I saw those and got excited; I've been using Mathematica for decades and do a lot of work with symbolic music.

Unfortunately they are extremely surface level in this release. It looks like there isn't even any ability to load/export MusicXML, kind of weird low level primitives and zero interesting higher level functions. Hopefully they keep iterating on it but I don't think it'll be useful for my workflow right now.

reply
prenx4x
2 hours ago
[-]
Hissab - https://hissab.io is a Free and opensource alternative to Wolfram
reply
alok-g
1 hour ago
[-]
Here are some other alternatives (some internally use free Wolfram engine):

Reimplementation in Rust: https://github.com/ad-si/Woxi

WLJS Notebook: https://wljs.io

VS Code extension: https://github.com/vanbaalon/wolfbook

reply
everyone
38 minutes ago
[-]
I just learned that Stephen Wolfram himself is a bit of a crank apparently. https://youtu.be/fO9iRDPXvT4?si=CbCjBtOSM5JhgYUF
reply
UltraSane
57 minutes ago
[-]
The mathematica solve function is a lot of fun to use.
reply
SilverElfin
3 hours ago
[-]
Does anyone use this outside of college classes? It looks so great in these demos but I never hear of companies using it.
reply
mackeye
3 hours ago
[-]
it has the nicest calculator syntax (imho) among the tools i've tried (python/julia/array langs/matlab/etc...) with extensive docs for each function and a nice notebook interface, but i've never written a program in it that was longer than one expression.
reply
alok-g
1 hour ago
[-]
I have used at work a lot for some projects (device physics modeling stuff)
reply
Postosuchus
2 hours ago
[-]
It used to be pretty popular for mathematical modeling in quantitative finance.
reply
afolkest
3 hours ago
[-]
Not industry, but it's pretty popular among theoretical physics researchers.
reply
jjtheblunt
3 hours ago
[-]
I had it in an engineering inner sanctum of Apple. had used it since it came out in 1988 on campus in Illinois, and folks in Apple definitely knew it. Not sure who all was doing what with it.
reply
Grosvenor
2 hours ago
[-]
Steve Jobs and Stephen Wolfram were friends for years. Mathematica shipped preinstalled on early NeXT systems.

SJ recommended some of the UI bits of the notebook. Particularly the separators between cells.

reply
raegis
52 minutes ago
[-]
I used Mathematica on a NeXT computer back in 1991. It was a beautiful machine to work on. I did a student project where I simulated the flow of the boundary of a plane region over time (like how the shape of a drop of oil in water changes over time) and it was very, very easy to write in Mathematica with cool graphics.
reply
markgall
2 hours ago
[-]
Still nowadays? My impression is that in (pure) math it's lost most of its market share in the last few years. But maybe that's only in my circles.
reply
ahnick
2 hours ago
[-]
what do you or others use instead?
reply
markgall
2 hours ago
[-]
Probably the most general-purpose one is SageMath, which is open-source and basically Python with a ton of sophisticated math stuff built into it. Everything I used to do in Mathematica I now do in sage, and I don't think I'm the only one. Probably field-dependent though.

Of course there is a whole constellation of more specialized things in certain fields, that has come a long way in the last 15 years. So people needing things like that no longer kludge things together in Mathematica.

reply
zozbot234
53 minutes ago
[-]
Maple would be the main proprietary alternative but yes, there's also SageMath.
reply
Vaslo
3 hours ago
[-]
I remember using it in my college days in the 90s.

People joining my company from academia usually know Mathematica along with Python or R.

When we tell them we don’t use Mathematica they are sometimes initially concerned. They are typically quite opinionated and I have yet to hear an employee complain about no longer having access to Mathematica. Or SPSS, SAS, or MiniTab for that matter.

reply