https://laws.lanl.gov/vhosts/mcnp.lanl.gov/pdf_files/la-ur-1...
https://laws.lanl.gov/vhosts/mcnp.lanl.gov/pdf_files/la-ur-1...
Also, you'd think computer algebra systems would make the list. Macsyma, Mathematica, etc.
Mathematica has had a notebook interface since before I could personally afford a machine that could run Mathematica, but somehow the newer and inferior Ipython/Jupyter system makes the list?
Plus the language is an ugly lisp and looks weird to people who understand log tables and calculators and Fortran.
And it's expensive and the guy most associated with it (Stephen something) has a bad rep.
But Jupyter is hot at the moment (for good and bad reasons) and it's FOSS and is easy to install as long as you can get your grad student to install conda for you.
Stephen Wolfram made his early reputation in part by being one of the first people to seriously use Macsyma for physics. No, I don't know any physicists that take A New Kind of Science that seriously, but that's a different story.
Jupyter is hot, but it's not novel. The Mathematica notebook interface was an innovation and is still best-in-class in my opinion.
However, Mathematica is really good for symbolic algebra! I wrote a Python-Mathematica bridge many, many years ago, and learned that not only could it decompose numeric matrices, it could do it for matrices with symbols. Mind=blown.
Is "worthwhile science" a jab at nuclear applications?
MC was developed by and used for the Manhattan Project - almost the entire computer architecture we are using to communicate resulted from military research related to strategy concerning weapons that could not have been made without MC, and this remade not only our relationship with technology but the geopolitics of the entire world.
I would say that, more broadly, the omission is the lack of any mention of the use of random sampling, including MC and random methods in machine learning.