(Pay no attention to the preposterous suggestion that it is still the technological leader.) There are, of course, many offsetting examples of visionaries who succeeded by mobilizing an open-source community.
To their credit, Mathematica did open up a huge technical lead in the 1990s. The Mathematica developers claim that the hierarchy afforded by the proprietary model is a better way to organize innovation. The obvious contrast is between the proprietary world of Wolfram and the open-source model of the software ecosystem that Jupyter mobilizes. The article asks why Jupyter succeed where Mathematica failed. I’m experimenting with, and excited about, its potential as a way to write up research results. Now, I’m much more productive with Jupyter. I had to learn the hard way why so many kept their distance from Mathematica. Jupyter is a new open-source alternative that is well on the way to becoming a standard for exchanging research results.Įach is spot on.Wolfram’s proprietary notebook showcased innovative technology, but decades after its introduction, still has few users.
A graphical user interface (GUI) can facilitate better technical writing.The Atlantic has a great article on new ways to share research results.
0 kommentar(er)
