On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Francesco Biscani <bluesca...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11 June 2015 at 20:13, Travis Scrimshaw <tsc...@ucdavis.edu> wrote: >> >> Difficult-to-dechiper can be considered a pro by bigger businesses with >> proprietry software to help prevent reverse-engineering (although from what >> I've been told, they typically run it through a scrambler before compiling >> the code for release). > > > Not sure what you mean by that. I have worked in the past for a > multinational company (>100k employees) on software which costs hundreds of > thousands of dollars per license, and never heard of that. I am not an > assembly guy but I would think that the binary of a non-trivial software is > already scrambled well enough (especially in release mode where the compiler > is gonna pull all sorts of tricks for optimisation). > >> >> However, from my experience, it is the quality of the code, comments, and >> documentation that determines the readability of the code, not so much the >> language. That's not to say some languages don't make it really difficult; >> specifically the non-standard/joke/developed-by-a-guy-with-too-much-ego >> *coughmathmaticacough* language, but these are relatively rare in practice. > > > I agree with you. I would not even consider Mathematica (or Wolfram code, or > whatever it is called nowadays) a proper language.
It's officially called "The Wolfram Language" [1] beating out [2] many other options such as "Wolframese, Wolframic, Wolframian, Wolframish or Wolframaic, perhaps Wolfese, Wolfic or Wolfish, Wolfian or Wolfan or Wolfatic, ,the exotic Wolfari or Wolfala? Wolvese or Wolvic? WolframCode or WolframScript—or Wolfcode or Wolfscript—but these sound either too obscure or too lightweight. Then there’s the somewhat inelegantWolframLang, or it shorter forms WolfLang and WolfLan, which sound too much like Wolfgang. Then there are names like WolframX and WolfX, but it’s not clear the “X” adds much. Same with WolframQ or WolframL. There’s also WolframPlus (Wolfram+),WolframStar (Wolfram*) or WolframDot. Or Wolfram1 (when’s 2?), WolframCore(remember core memory?) or WolframBase. There are also Greek-letter suffixes, Wolfram|Alpha-style, like Wolfram Omega or Wolfram Lambda (“wolf”, “ram” and “lamb”: too many animals!). Or one could go shorter, like the W Language..." [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfram_Language [2] http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2013/02/what-should-we-call-the-language-of-mathematica/ > > Cheers, > > Francesco. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- William (http://wstein.org) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
