Mathematica 7.0 Released Today(blog.wolfram.com)
blog.wolfram.com
Mathematica 7.0 Released Today
http://blog.wolfram.com/2008/11/18/surprise-mathematica-70-released-today/
51 comments
I always believed, that it was a shameless borrowing (as do "great artist") of Macsyma -- living on free as Maxima.
Octave, Scilab and python driven C++ (e.g. Automatically Tuned Linear Algebra Software, ATLAS) can do just as good, if not the same or better. If you know what you are doing (which would be a must, anyway).
ps: Steven's book is full of spin, so I guess some of them would also make it to his website and vice-versa: this is called marketing and propaganda...
Octave, Scilab and python driven C++ (e.g. Automatically Tuned Linear Algebra Software, ATLAS) can do just as good, if not the same or better. If you know what you are doing (which would be a must, anyway).
ps: Steven's book is full of spin, so I guess some of them would also make it to his website and vice-versa: this is called marketing and propaganda...
While I will probably never use mathematica, due to its breathtaking price, one can only wonder how many researchers the world over simply pirate it. I also doubt we will ever see Wolfram willing to set the price at a level that normal human beings can afford.
Perhaps a client-server version that does all its computing back at Wolfram's servers, would give them the confidence to dabble with a sane price point...
Perhaps a client-server version that does all its computing back at Wolfram's servers, would give them the confidence to dabble with a sane price point...
It's not a matter of "dabbling" or "sanity", it's a matter of making a niche product that takes a lot of very qualified people years of work. The market for individual consumers that would buy Mathematica is tiny. You might as well wonder why SAP don't "dabble" with a "sane" price point for R/3 for home users to balance their chequebooks.
I'm not completely convinced. I'd love to use Mathematica for modeling some of the stuff that we're doing, but no way I'm going to drop $4000 on it (the price where I live). $500 and I'd do it immediately.
"Shockingly rich professors of mathematics" - a harshly vertical niche, no wonder the per-unit price is high. But I think they've painted themselves into a bit of an unnecessary corner. Mathematica is a universal workhorse and math has huge applicability. I think they could cut the per-unit price and make it up on volume, selling into commerce and academia. Heck, I'd be inclined to offer "open source user" licenses free for private individuals who agreed to CC license their results and their code libraries.
Who makes more money, Toyota or Rolls Royce?
Who makes more money, Toyota or Rolls Royce?
"Who makes more money, Toyota or Rolls Royce?"
I'd leave off the automotive comparison. Porsche is rich enough to contemplate buying Volkswagen.
I'd leave off the automotive comparison. Porsche is rich enough to contemplate buying Volkswagen.
I expect, like Oracle, almost all users of Mathematica are on their institution or employer's site licence.
There's plenty of cheap maths software (e.g. MathCad) and free (e.g. Sage, Octave) around.
There's plenty of cheap maths software (e.g. MathCad) and free (e.g. Sage, Octave) around.
researchers work in universities, almost all of which have site-wide licenses. Site-wide licenses for mathematica also start to approach reason. Its doubtful that that many researchers will have to pirate it.
researchers work in universities
Really? By definition? Was Erdos not a "researcher?"
Really? By definition? Was Erdos not a "researcher?"
Universities in a lot of countries do not have budgets that can deal with even $1000 a seat.
I can confirm this. We have a site-wide license for Matlab, but not for Mathematica. Educational version of Mathematica 7 would cost me my two monthly salaries - therefore I will pirate it.
I didn't buy any, but from my point of view, Mathematica is priced just a bit lower than Matlab.
Matlab quotes me $1900 for a single common license: http://www.mathworks.com/store/loginSubmitGuest.do while Mathematica is $1750: http://store.wolfram.com/view/app/mathematica/
How much does site license for Matlab cost you?
Matlab quotes me $1900 for a single common license: http://www.mathworks.com/store/loginSubmitGuest.do while Mathematica is $1750: http://store.wolfram.com/view/app/mathematica/
How much does site license for Matlab cost you?
I got Matlab student version 4 years ago for around $140.
A site license is a lot. My dept can't afford it and use Maple instead.
Sweet Jesus. The image-processing capability is pretty hot, as is this:
ProteinData["A2M", "MoleculePlot"]
Why? Do you think there's something special about displaying molecules? Or do you think Mathematica does it better than anything else?
Try PyMOL - the most widely used molecular graphics software, probably.
Try PyMOL - the most widely used molecular graphics software, probably.
Yes, I use PyMol quite a bit. The source code is hideous, and the author likes it that way. It would take an immense effort to smoothly incorporate PyMol into a larger system like SciPy or Sage; it would be very useful if that happened, but I don't think it will any time soon.
I haven't used Mathematica 7 yet, but it looks like the tools it implements in one small library are decent substitutes for what's currently implemented in several big hairy bioinformatics toolchains. Look at how we operate now -- NCBI offers a bunch of free standalone tools; BioPerl and BioPython do some good glue, and then there are a bunch of visualization tools, and we FTP copies of whatever databases we need and keep updated manually. The extensible tools each have their own extension language, so a RasMol script won't load in PyMol (the tweaks, not the PDB file). Mathematica 7 appears to offer the basic components of this in one clean, well-organized standard library, controlled by one powerful language.
All that's great, but the especially interesting thing is their claim that the design of the whole system made all of this easy. The image-processing tricks and the unassuming Parallelize function seem like very specialized features, but they cobbled all of this together in, I guess, 2 years and some change, on top of a codebase that's almost 20 years old. It's like the anti-PHP -- brilliant design decisions all along that make adding new features easier, not harder. I have a feeling the Mathematica source code contains some very interesting ideas, and if it were open-source, it would be relatively easy to add additional features that seem like a big deal in existing tools.
I haven't used Mathematica 7 yet, but it looks like the tools it implements in one small library are decent substitutes for what's currently implemented in several big hairy bioinformatics toolchains. Look at how we operate now -- NCBI offers a bunch of free standalone tools; BioPerl and BioPython do some good glue, and then there are a bunch of visualization tools, and we FTP copies of whatever databases we need and keep updated manually. The extensible tools each have their own extension language, so a RasMol script won't load in PyMol (the tweaks, not the PDB file). Mathematica 7 appears to offer the basic components of this in one clean, well-organized standard library, controlled by one powerful language.
All that's great, but the especially interesting thing is their claim that the design of the whole system made all of this easy. The image-processing tricks and the unassuming Parallelize function seem like very specialized features, but they cobbled all of this together in, I guess, 2 years and some change, on top of a codebase that's almost 20 years old. It's like the anti-PHP -- brilliant design decisions all along that make adding new features easier, not harder. I have a feeling the Mathematica source code contains some very interesting ideas, and if it were open-source, it would be relatively easy to add additional features that seem like a big deal in existing tools.
I haven't used Mathematica 9.0 and its chemistry-related functions, but from the presentations, they look like practically useless toys for dabbles.
Can Mathematica do raytracing, display secondary structure, semi-transparent molecular surface and allow you to select coloring patterns? Is it easy to predict protonation states of molecules at different pH levels and electrostatic potentials? Can it do molecular dynamics?
Who cares that they have built-in access to the melting point of caffeine?!
Can Mathematica do raytracing, display secondary structure, semi-transparent molecular surface and allow you to select coloring patterns? Is it easy to predict protonation states of molecules at different pH levels and electrostatic potentials? Can it do molecular dynamics?
Who cares that they have built-in access to the melting point of caffeine?!
I think the point is that you have to type about 30 characters to get a 3d plot of the molecule of choice. Unlike M-, PyMOL doesn't have the data built-in, so you have to find, download, load etc yourself.
4 characters with PyMOL:
Click Plugin, then PDB Load; then type 1UBQ
Click Plugin, then PDB Load; then type 1UBQ
Some of this stuff is jaw droppingly awesome. But I have to say, the most useful things for me will be the discrete calculus, the new visualizations, and the enhanced typesetting and UI. Many of the new mathematical additions are very interesting but very specific.
I am very happy that Mathematica 7 ships with so much data. Data processing and procurement is a perpetual burden for those in chemistry, life science and environmental science. I'll be glad if this tax has somewhat lifted it.
I am very happy that Mathematica 7 ships with so much data. Data processing and procurement is a perpetual burden for those in chemistry, life science and environmental science. I'll be glad if this tax has somewhat lifted it.
Mathematica is nice but I dont like their licensing policies. Had a huge fight with them once after I had to reinstall my OS :(
If you missed Wolfram's talk at Startup School you can get it at (along with the other talks):
http://feeds.feedburner.com/Ycombinator-StartupSchool
http://feeds.feedburner.com/Ycombinator-StartupSchool
Unfortunately, the link to the Wolfram talk on Feedburner isn't working. Here's a link to the transcript of the talk (the mp3 is also available for iPod-achievers by going to the talk index): http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/talks/ycombinator...
The talk is worth a read, but he doesn't give out any secrets to success ("work hard"), and note that the title of the talk is "On Starting a Long Term Company." It seems aimed at solving the problem of "How can I get the people, software, and money for my research?" rather than the problem of "How can I afford that ocean-front mansion and retire at 30?"
The talk is worth a read, but he doesn't give out any secrets to success ("work hard"), and note that the title of the talk is "On Starting a Long Term Company." It seems aimed at solving the problem of "How can I get the people, software, and money for my research?" rather than the problem of "How can I afford that ocean-front mansion and retire at 30?"
So when do we get the version he talked about at Startup School that can find a unifying theory of physics by running cellular automata with randomly generated start conditions?
In 10^10^(big number) years? :-)
It's funny to think that the singularity, if it is coming, will produce this profound qualitative shift in human existence. And at the same time mean absolutely nothing in the face of a problem such as this.
shrugs
I have the feeling that if anything like the 'singularity' happens, it will feel fairly normal to the participants. There are many things today that would seem completely 'sci-fi' to people even a few decades ago. But we're still going to be resource and physics constrained, unless society changes our conscious enough that memes and genes won't still end up in an endless hunt for exponential growth.
I have the feeling that if anything like the 'singularity' happens, it will feel fairly normal to the participants. There are many things today that would seem completely 'sci-fi' to people even a few decades ago. But we're still going to be resource and physics constrained, unless society changes our conscious enough that memes and genes won't still end up in an endless hunt for exponential growth.
Genes? Where we're going there are no genes.
No singularity. You must have read to much sci-fi written by AI researchers afraid of dying and overly influenced by judeochristian conceptions of God.
If you want a qualitative shift in human existence you must create it. The singularity isn't going to save us any more then beneficent aliens will solve my problems by taking me on their ship to the planet of the sex goddesses to live in bliss in their zoo.
If you want a qualitative shift in human existence you must create it. The singularity isn't going to save us any more then beneficent aliens will solve my problems by taking me on their ship to the planet of the sex goddesses to live in bliss in their zoo.
Planet of the sex goddesses, got it.
google subgenius
Google Eliezer Yudkowsky.
You are said Eliezer Yudkowsky? Nice. I read and like that overcoming bias stuff. If anyone could prove me wrong about the singularity, it's gonna be young people working on their own like you. We need lots more people working on there own chasing there own ideas. I like your style.
I bet you find lots of useful stuff trying for it. It still seems to me to be more a religious then scientific endeavor, but I'm glad you are working to prove loudmouths like me wrong.
I bet you find lots of useful stuff trying for it. It still seems to me to be more a religious then scientific endeavor, but I'm glad you are working to prove loudmouths like me wrong.
pg, any chance of negotiating a news.yc member discount?
It truly, truly sucks that Mathematica would cost me nearly a month of pay. I'd love to have it and use it, but that is just far too much.
Maybe you can try sage:
http://wiki.sagemath.org/sage_mathematica
http://wiki.sagemath.org/sage_mathematica
I love all the components that sage is built on, and am a huge python nerd, though I haven't tried sage itself.
Mathematica just does some super cool things and encourages a different pattern of thought, which I'd love to play with.
Mathematica just does some super cool things and encourages a different pattern of thought, which I'd love to play with.
At least they have a hell of an educational discount. Probably the biggest I have seen.
I learn things sometimes... do I qualify?
(seriously though, I'm not a student. 2 credits at Johns Hopkins, right down the street, are about the same price as Mathematica)
(seriously though, I'm not a student. 2 credits at Johns Hopkins, right down the street, are about the same price as Mathematica)
Go take that class at Johns Hopkins, then click on this link: http://store.wolfram.com/view/app/mathforstudents - $139.95 for a fully functional student version. You can also get a semester version for $44.95.
"Note: Mathematica for Students is intended for students enrolled in accredited academic institutions and is for use on a student's own personal computer."
"Note: Mathematica for Students is intended for students enrolled in accredited academic institutions and is for use on a student's own personal computer."
Of course, $139 is far too high for a student.
Tons of students pay $100 for books. Tons of students pay $10,000-$30,000 for tuition.
But no students pay for software
I suppose many don't. I guess it depends on the meaning of "too high" for a student. I took it to mean "students cannot afford to pay $139" rather than "at $139, students will prefer to get the software illegally, even though they could pay if they chose to".
I just a attended a free webinar about using Mathematica for education (http://www.wolfram.com/services/education/seminars/s01.html) and the guy who was chatting with all of the attendees told me my college already had a site license. Turns out I can use Mathematica at school and at home for free and I had no idea...
You might want to check if your campus has something similar set up. The Mathematica folks might be able to direct you to the right place.
You might want to check if your campus has something similar set up. The Mathematica folks might be able to direct you to the right place.
The upgrade for students is $75 (if you have 6). I don't think i'm gonna jump. Doesn't really seem worth it? I never use the advanced features as is. All i ever do is basic algebraic manipulations and screwy integrals.
How is the programming language in Mathematica?
How is it for Matlab stuff? Or perhaps it isn't for linear algebra at all?
Can you write real standalone applications in Mathematica or it is solely for prototyping, analyizng and modeling?
How is it for Matlab stuff? Or perhaps it isn't for linear algebra at all?
Can you write real standalone applications in Mathematica or it is solely for prototyping, analyizng and modeling?
For $2500 it had better come as a brain implant
Mathematica's bugginess (on SGI) is what prompted me to learn "real" programming languages some years ago.
The name is a little misleading though, as the later releases have shown Mathematica to be a great general symbolic manipulation program not just for, say, Calculus homework, but Wolfram had already used the name SMP, and the other options just didn't seem as catchy: http://www.stephenwolfram.com/scrapbook/internals/page5/3.ht...