Re: Python fo Numerical Programming (was Re: How to get into Scientific Programming)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Louis Pecora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > In article 
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >  Timo Nieminen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> >> I'm not surprised at all. Since Mathematica wasn't designed for that kind 
> >> of thing at all. It might be (one of) the premier symbolic algebra 
> >> package(s), but, for numerical work?
> > 
> > Yes, Mathematica developers have gone to great lengths to add many 
> > numerical functions to Mathematica. And they are powerful. But it's 
> > the programming that kills it...at least for me.  
> 
> The truly bizarre thing is that Wolfram really believes his clunky
> procedural programming language is "superior" to and "more powerful" 
> than equations. Apparently, he is not aware that purely functional
> languages are _ALSO_ Turing complete --- even though they consist of
> nothing _but_ equations (as opposed to "assignment statements") !!!
> He really ought to brush up his knowledge of the "old kind of science"
> before he starts making grandiose claims about a "new kind of science"...
> 
> 
> -- Gordon D. Pusch   
> 
> perl -e '$_ = "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'

I'm not disagreeing, but presumably some kind of selection ("IF" or
"skip next statement", etc) should be available for a Turing machine
to operate. How's that performed in a sequence of functions?