Timeline for Programming Mathematica in plaintext, i.e. no formatting, non-notebook
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 4, 2019 at 6:33 | history | edited | Andrew Cheong | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 552 characters in body
|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:55 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/ with https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Aug 27, 2013 at 19:56 | vote | accept | Andrew Cheong | ||
| Aug 26, 2013 at 2:35 | answer | added | Mr.Wizard | timeline score: 6 | |
| Aug 25, 2013 at 22:34 | answer | added | jlperla | timeline score: 7 | |
| Aug 25, 2013 at 1:09 | comment | added | amr |
@acheong87 you can just right-click in a Notebook and insert a Code cell, which will have standard text/formatting (same cell type as in New -> package). also check out my answer here for an example of the kinds of things you can do with a Mathematica notebook. and do try to play with Manipulate. i don't miss Vim much in Mathematica because Mathematica code is very succinct. i consider around more than 200 lines to be a large Mathematica program. you can accomplish a lot very efficiently once you get into the vibe of the language
|
|
| Aug 24, 2013 at 22:23 | comment | added | acl | Not everything in the textmate plugin works in sublime text (I remember problems with locating functions and similar things). I've modified many parts for my own use, but it's not really in a good enough state to share publicly. However, it is not hard to fix whatever you need, so it's worth a try if you like sublime text. | |
| Aug 24, 2013 at 17:54 | comment | added | Yves Klett | There is also @halirutan's Open-source IntelliJIDEA plugin to support Mathematica development. Still thinking about an answer that will add value ;-) | |
| Aug 24, 2013 at 17:34 | comment | added | Andrew Cheong | @YvesKlett - I was not, in fact. Workbench looks like a viable alternative for what I'd like to do; the Textmate plugin (for Sublime) mentioned in your link, possibly even better. I think your comment should be added as an answer! Thanks. | |
| Aug 24, 2013 at 17:30 | comment | added | Andrew Cheong |
@cormullion - I agree. Perhaps I miscommunicated; my "either-or" wasn't meant to be a "XOR". I wanted to make sure that one of the ways wasn't a mistake, e.g. impossible, discouraged by seasoned users, or considerably difficult. For example, if it had been the case that plaintext-coding was not possible, I would have begun absorbing information differently: less attention to function names (since ?func* will be available in the notebook; and in the notebook I'm less likely to hone touchtyping), more attention to notebook and interface features; looking into how to bundle scripts; etc.
|
|
| Aug 24, 2013 at 15:22 | comment | added | cormullion | "one or the other" - I can't see why you can't do both. Explore the language interactively, and write specific packages using Vim (or whatever) or run things from the command line once you've got it. You may find that looking at the same thing from two different directions enhances understanding. (The steepness of the learning curve may be due to the language itself, rather than to the method you employ.) | |
| Aug 24, 2013 at 15:15 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackMma/status/371289616776974336 | ||
| Aug 24, 2013 at 14:41 | answer | added | m_goldberg | timeline score: 16 | |
| Aug 24, 2013 at 14:13 | comment | added | Yves Klett | Are you aware of Workbench? Also related: mathematica.stackexchange.com/q/5184/131 | |
| Aug 24, 2013 at 13:46 | review | First posts | |||
| Aug 24, 2013 at 15:18 | |||||
| Aug 24, 2013 at 13:34 | history | edited | Andrew Cheong | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 characters in body
|
| Aug 24, 2013 at 13:29 | history | asked | Andrew Cheong | CC BY-SA 3.0 |