"Functional Programming
Long viewed as an important theoretical idea, functional programming finally became truly convenient and practical with the introduction of the Wolfram Language."
Not sure if anyone can take that seriously.
Kinda funny considering how the Mathematica language is built on top of the M-expressions that lisp never bothered to implement.
Or Wolfram-W
There was also a recent article on here about how programming is a dead-end, non-prestigious job in research circles. Sounds like a continuation of that sentiment.
But even if you did believe the mathematicians claim, by the same logic you would philosophy above them.
Anyway, in regard to the idea of science "stack", I kind of enjoyed Alan Lightman's Reunion where he poses a nineteenth century astronomer's obsession with and histrionics in response to rejection by a cute young woman in his observatory as a kind of "proof" that biology studied more powerful forces. The event simultaneously lead to the astronomer abandoning his career and inspired hers in biology.[1] Though obviously meant as joke, the author himself transitioned from a successful career as a physicist to writing and teaching literature.
[1] http://books.google.com/books?id=4nQhY2fbX2IC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA1...
I always thought that the old tired line of "X is the core science!" was a trap that only mathematicians, physicists, and ignorant grad students fell into. I wasn't aware that any respected (and respectful) scientists actually took it seriously.
Again, this is not a value judgement. A similar thing exists with computers. People who write web applications depend on user-application infrastructure, who depend on systems applications, which depend on operating systems, which depends on computer architecture, which depends on materials engineering and so on. As a systems programmer, I regularly reason about operating systems and computer architecture. But I never reason about the properties of the materials that make the hardware. The computer architects, though, may have to reason about the materials, as it can provide constraints to their designs.
that said, i think it is lisp-like as a design choice. the Mathematica language itself is more raw than even lisp -- you can take the language in different design directions. Wolfram chose to include lisp aspects