8 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2026
    1. “I think what they have is acceptance from the scientific community as a tool that is considered to be universal,” Theodore Gray says of Pérez’s group. “And that’s the thing that Mathematica never really so far has achieved.” There are now 1.3 million of these notebooks hosted publicly on Github. They’re in use at Google, Bloomberg, and NASA; by musicians, teachers, and AI researchers; and in “almost every country on Earth.”
    2. Out of the box, Python is a much less powerful language than the Wolfram Language that powers Mathematica. But where Mathematica gets its powers from an army of Wolfram Research programmers, Python’s bare-bones core is supplemented by a massive library of extra features—for processing images, making music, building AIs, analyzing language, graphing data sets—built by a community of open-source contributors working for free. Python became a de facto standard for scientific computing because open-source developers like Pérez happened to build useful tools for it; and open-source developers have flocked to Python because it happens to be the de facto standard for scientific computing. Programming-language communities, like any social network, thrive—or die—on the strength of these feedback loops.
    3. Gray brought the same basic concept to Mathematica, with help refining the design from none other than Steve Jobs. The notebook is designed to turn scientific programming into an interactive exercise, where individual commands were tweaked and rerun, perhaps dozens or hundreds of times, as the author learned from the results of their little computational experiments, and came to a more intimate understanding of their data.
  2. Feb 2021
  3. Apr 2018
    1. “The number of moving parts is so vast, and several of them are under the control of different groups. There’s no way you could ever pull it together into an integrated system in the same way as you can in a single commercial product with, you know, a single maniac in the middle.”

      While there are indeed many moving parts modern Version Control Systems take care of that properly and automatically. The idea of a Benevolent dictatorship dictating the course of the software is not wrong, but it's been shown that it limits the software itself, no matter how smart or good the dictator is, he/she will never be able to think about every aspect and possible applications of the software. And considering this is a tool for research and experimentation, limiting the tool on purpose is not a very good idea, if you ask me. EVEN THEN, an open-source model leaves space for a Benevolent dictatorship (just as Linux and Google does for many of its FOSS projects), so that isn't really an argument against an open-source non-commercial developing model, in the worst case scenario.

  4. Feb 2017