This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I'm glad the article goes so much into depth about how the name of the language came to be in 2013. But it remains a mystery where that name comes from. It seems to me to be a very important, perhaps even paradigm shifting name. Can any internet sleuths figure this one out? Thanks. 122.162.163.84 ( talk) 02:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Can we have some examples of the Wolfram Programming language? By example, I mean code.

This should redirect there (to Wolfram (programming language)) rather than vice versa. Wikipedia typically has (programming language) at the end of all the base names of languages for their articles. Not sure why this one differs.

Because the name of the language is "Wolfram Language", not "Wolfram". 71.102.128.42 ( talk) 06:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Then it should be Wolfram Language (programming language), no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.36.197 ( talk) 09:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply

That is not necessary, because there is nothing else that "Wolfram Language" can refer to. I believe the article Wolfram Language is already appropriately titled and does not need to be moved. TJRana ( talk) 23:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Other than stating that Wolfram is bundled with the Raspberry Pi, there is no information about the cost. Can Wolfram Language be downloaded for free, like Java?

Also, please expand article to include the System Requirements for running Wolfram Language. 199.46.196.230 ( talk) 20:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

I think it is not free (in any of its licensing models, even if some are "free to use"). The IP is controlled by Wolfram and it is cloud dependent. In my view it is even hard to classify it as a programming language at least in the general sense one is defined as such. -- 109.49.160.57 ( talk) 10:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Re. classification: To the people who already know that "programming language" can be understood in different senses, this case will be obvious. For those who don't already know, calling it something other than a "programming language" might make things obscure enough to stop them from finding out about it.

(There could be something in an introductory note saying in what way this isn't strictly etc.) TooManyFingers ( talk) 16:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

In the Implementations section, there's a reference book mentioned that is open access, but it's difficult to figure out from the context which reference book is meant. (I'm sure it was obvious to the writer.)

Adding just a couple of words, such as "the reference book *to X* is open access" would fix it. TooManyFingers ( talk) 16:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello. I have just tagged this article {{ undisclosed paid}}, because it was very heavily edited by a (highly likely paid) sockfarm that is focused almost exclusively on promoting Stephen Wolfram and his work. Please see this COIN thread ( perma) and the related SPI for more information. The article will need a thorough review before the tag is removed. Thanks and best, Blablubbs| talk 15:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Wow that's a lot of results for "Wolfram" on the COI board. And I was wondering why the freeware SDK was described as open source when I-don't-know-who added it. -- Artoria 2e5 🌉 01:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  Can't a software be freeware and open-source at the same time? what's your point FallingPineapple ( talk) 16:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  The point is that it is not open source. Montesquieu1789 ( talk) 00:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  I don't think languages can be opensource/not open source, the parser seems to be open source though?

  https://github.com/WolframResearch/codeparser FallingPineapple ( talk) 18:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  If you don't understand how a programming language can be open source or not open source, then I suggest you stop commenting on this page. Wolfram Language is proprietary in that the source code cannot be accessed, forked, or used by others freely. You cannot look at the underlying code that powers the Wolfram Language parser. It is likely written in Java/C++, but the company does not make that available, and Wolfram Language is not made available via an open-source license. Montesquieu1789 ( talk) 01:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  There is no need to be rude, there is a code of conduct on Wikipedia which I suggest you follow,

  instead of being insulting you should just provide a secondary source that indicates "Wolfram Language" is proprietary. Again I'm not talking about the interpreter or compiler it uses... FallingPineapple ( talk) 01:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  moreover, they themselves seem to believe it is open-source, [1]

  so I suggest you add secondary sources to the contrary. FallingPineapple ( talk) 01:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  Please see here where in Wolfram Research's own words they say their technology is not open source. Montesquieu1789 ( talk) 00:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  self-published blogs are not good sources on Wikipedia FallingPineapple ( talk) 00:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  This is a Talk page where we're discussing the content of the page. If Wolfram Research says their own technology is closed source, that seems to be a pretty good indicator that we should not consider it open source. Here's a news article that says it is proprietary and not open source. There are many more if you search. Montesquieu1789 ( talk) 00:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply

It seems that this article is not in a good shape, but before making any improvements, it should be decided whether it's better to just merge it into Wolfram Mathematica. The Wolfram Language is somewhat peculiar in that Wolfram does not make a distinction between what would normally be called a core language vs its standard library. It is unclear where the boundary is between the two, or if there is a boundary at all. Even the computable knowledge features, which are of course entirely dependent on the Wolfram servers backing them, are talked about as a part of the language. In fact, the wolfram.com website appears to effectively use "Wolfram Language" to refer to a complete software product rather than a programming language. BarroColorado ( talk) 06:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Unit 1 adultes 87.240.244.106 ( talk) 21:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply