Eg. when you enter a rotation matrix, it's obvious when you make a mistake when you use the graphical editor in Mathematica. It takes a lot more effort to check if ((1,0,0),(0, sin(2pit),cos(2pit)),(0, cos(2pit),-sin(2pit))) is correct.
Eg. when you enter a rotation matrix, it's obvious when you make a mistake when you use the graphical editor in Mathematica. It takes a lot more effort to check if ((1,0,0),(0, sin(2pit),cos(2pit)),(0, cos(2pit),-sin(2pit))) is correct.
This is what that looks like in wolfram alpha: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=1%2B%28%28%28%28a-b%29%... It looks the same in Mathematica while your typing it in, which makes I extremely easy to work with, because even very complex equations look exactly like usual in Mathematica instead of ending up looking like lisp implementation of the Fibonacci sequence.
I wonder if Lisp can benefit from a similar 2d visualization sugar.
And super/sub scripts are in HTML as well.
Unicode is doing all the symbols these days
Param placement like n=0 under a summation, etc are a little more idiosyncratic