Bravo, that was pretty good :) On 11 June 2015 at 21:10, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > -- 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.
