Skip to content

Interesting remarks about R back in 1999

3 messages · francogrex, Spencer Graves

francogrex
# 
Hi, this is not an R-help post, but I found this extract below that was
written by a leading mathematician back in 1999 when he was talking about
statistics and computing. I found it interesting to share and I ask your
opinion do you think this still holds today or things have changed? Thanks.

?...we would also like to mention that in our opinion Mathematica provides
an excellent and indeed unparalleled environment for mathematical
statistical research. In comparison, no other computing environment provides
such high quality capabilities simultaneously in: symbolics, numerics,
graphics, typesetting and programming. Typically most researchers need to
develop some code to implement their methods. Often the researcher?s code
will only be executed a few times and the researcher?s main consideration is
his time and effort as opposed to producing an cpu-efficient stand-alone
software product. The importance of a powerful user-oriented programming
language for researchers is sometimes lacking in other environment.
?comments have been made by research statisticians on the ease of
programming in S and Splus as opposed to SAS. If the programming language is
a natural extension of mathematical notation, this translates into ease and
speed of development. This was found to be true in the past with APL, Splus
and XLISP-STAT. We have found that Mathematica provides even more
capability. However, for advanced state-of-the-art research and teaching in
applied statistics and data analysis, R, Splus or XLISP-STAT may still be
advantageous due to the wide usage by many leading researchers and the high
quality functions for standard and advanced statistical methods that are
available in the associated infrastructure (Statlib 1999). Furthermore, R
and XLISPSTAT are freeware. However from the educational viewpoint, this
advantage may not be so important since many students and researchers like
to understand the principles involved. With Mathematica it is as easy to
write out the necessary functions in Mathematica notation as it would be to
explain the procedures in a traditional mathematical notation. In summary,
Mathematica?s superior programming language is, in our opinion, one of its
key strengths and advantages.?
Spencer Graves
# 
Many people love Mathematica, but it's strength is symbolic 
mathematics, not data analysis.  Googling for "data analysis in 
Mathematica and R" led me to an advertisement for a Mathematica add-on 
called "RLink", which is an "exciting new tool [to] leverage the 
statistical analysis power of R from within Mathematica! ... Overall, R 
contains perhaps the most advanced data analysis capabilities of any 
data analysis package ... .  RLink ... allows Mathematica users to embed 
R in their Mathematica applications."  
(http://www.scienceops.com/Tools.asp?sID=215) 

      In the late 1990s, colleagues raved about Mathematica and pushed 
me to use it.  I tried several times, but never figured out how to get 
Mathematica to read a simple csv file and do things I did handily in 
S-Plus.  Doubtless, that was partly my fault, because a book on "Data 
Analysis Using Mathematica" carries a copyright date of 1995.  Some 
people had evidently solved the problems that overwhelmed my interest 
level at that time. 

      Today, if I wanted symbolic mathematics, I might try Yacas 
(http://yacas.sourceforge.net/homepage.html -- and the Ryacas package).  
Mathematica is probably superior to Yacas, but I'd have to be convinced 
that the difference was sufficient to justify the extra expense. 

      Just my 0.02 fraction of your favorite currency. 
      Spencer
francogrex wrote:
francogrex
# 
Hi, yes it's true Mathematica is too expensive (I think one of the most
expensive out there), but yacas has a loooong way to go before becoming
mathematica. I agree mathematica is not really for data analysis but I think
it's to help researchers and inventors invent new ideas, understand concepts
etc... However for that there is a "cheaper" alternative made out of three
components: a pen, a paper and a human brain. The Rlink was available for
free at some point; now it's not even there anymore!
Spencer Graves wrote: