programming languages

Rank

Mathematica vs C++

  1. This language excels at symbolic manipulation

    96% 4%
  2. This is a high level language

    90% 10%
  3. This language matches it's problem domain particularly well.

    89% 11%
  4. This language has a niche outside of which I would not use it

    89% 11%
  5. The semantics of this language are much different than other languages I know.

    87% 13%
  6. This language has a very coherent design

    77% 23%
  7. This language is likely to be a passing fad

    77% 23%
  8. This language is easier to use for it's problem domain by removing unneeded expressiveness (such as not being Turing complete).

    74% 26%
  9. I often write things in this language with the intent of rewriting them in something else later

    73% 27%
  10. It is easy to tell at a glance what code in this language does

    73% 27%
  11. This language has a niche in which it is great

    70% 30%
  12. I enjoy playing with this language but would never use it for "real code"

    70% 30%
  13. I still discover new features of this language on a fairly regular basis

    70% 30%
  14. Code written in this language tends to be terse

    69% 31%
  15. This language is good for numeric computing

    68% 32%
  16. This language has unusual features that I often miss when using other languages

    68% 32%
  17. This language would be good for teaching children to write software

    68% 32%
  18. I find this language easy to prototype in

    66% 34%
  19. This language is best for very small projects

    66% 34%
  20. This language is good for beginners

    66% 34%
  21. Code written in this language is very readable

    65% 35%
  22. Code written in this language will usually run in all the major implementations if it runs in one of them.

    65% 35%
  23. This language is expressive

    65% 35%
  24. This language is well documented

    64% 36%
  25. I am sometimes embarrassed to admit to my peers that I know this language

    64% 36%
  26. If this language didn't exist, I would have trouble finding a satisfactory replacement

    63% 37%
  27. This language is built on a small core of orthogonal features

    63% 37%
  28. I would use this language for casual scripting

    63% 37%
  29. I enjoy using this language

    63% 37%
  30. This language is good for scientific computing

    62% 38%
  31. If my code in this language successfully compiles, there is a good chance my code is correct.

    62% 38%
  32. I would use this language as a scripting language embedded inside a larger application

    62% 38%
  33. This language is well suited for an agile development approach using short iterations.

    62% 38%
  34. I am reluctant to admit to knowing this language

    61% 39%
  35. This language excels at text processing

    61% 39%
  36. I often feel like I am not smart enough to write this language

    60% 40%
  37. Code written in this language tends to be very reliable

    59% 41%
  38. This language encourages writing code that is easy to maintain.

    57% 43%
  39. I use this language out of choice

    56% 44%
  40. I usually use this language on solo projects

    56% 44%
  41. The resources for learning this language are of high quality

    55% 45%
  42. This language has an annoying syntax

    54% 46%
  43. This language has well-organized libraries with consistent, carefully thought-out interfaces

    53% 47%
  44. When I write code in this language I can be very sure it is correct

    52% 48%
  45. I find code written in this language very elegant

    51% 49%
  46. This language has a very dogmatic community

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 12 out of 24 each for C++ and Mathematica C++
  47. Libraries in this language tend to be well documented.

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 15 out of 30 each for C++ and Mathematica C++
  48. This language is minimal

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 15 out of 30 each for C++ and Mathematica C++
  49. This language has a very rigid idea of how things should be done

    48% 52%
  50. I learned this language early in my career as a programmer

    48% 52%
  51. It is easy to debug programs written in this language when it goes wrong

    47% 53%
  52. I would like to write more of this language than I currently do

    46% 54%
  53. It's unusual for me to discover unfamiliar features

    46% 54%
  54. I rarely have difficulty abstracting patterns I find in my code

    44% 56%
  55. This language has a good library distribution mechanism.

    44% 56%
  56. I would recommend most programmers learn this language, regardless of whether they have a specific need for it

    43% 57%
  57. This language has a wide variety of agreed-upon conventions, which are generally adhered to reasonably well, and which increase my productivity

    42% 58%
  58. This language is large

    41% 59%
  59. This language is good for distributed computing

    40% 60%
  60. Learning this language improved my ability as a programmer

    40% 60%
  61. I often get angry when writing code in this language

    40% 60%
  62. This language excels at concurrency

    39% 61%
  63. This language is likely to have a strong influence on future languages

    38% 62%
  64. I regularly use this language

    38% 62%
  65. The thought that I may still be using this language in twenty years time fills me with dread

    36% 64%
  66. I use a lot of code written in this language which I really don't want to have to make changes to

    36% 64%
  67. This language has a high quality implementation

    36% 64%
  68. This language is frequently used for applications it isn't suitable for

    35% 65%
  69. I would use this language for a web project

    35% 65%
  70. This language has a good community

    34% 66%
  71. I find it easy to write efficient code in this language

    34% 66%
  72. This language encourages writing reusable code.

    34% 66%
  73. This language has many features which feel "tacked on"

    32% 68%
  74. Developers who primarily use this language often burn out after a few years

    31% 69%
  75. Learning this language significantly changed how I use other languages.

    31% 69%
  76. It is too easy to write code in this language that looks like it does one thing but actually does something else

    31% 69%
  77. I can imagine using this language in my day job

    30% 70%
  78. Programs written in this language tend to play well with others

    30% 70%
  79. This language is very flexible

    29% 71%
  80. I can imagine this will be a popular language in twenty years time

    29% 71%
  81. Programs written in this language will usually work in future versions of the language

    28% 72%
  82. This language is unusually bad for beginners

    28% 72%
  83. I usually use this language on projects with many other members

    28% 72%
  84. I know this language well

    26% 74%
    Mathematica 308 out of 421 picked C++ over Mathematica C++
  85. I would use this language for a desktop GUI project

    24% 76%
  86. Code written in this language tends to be verbose

    22% 78%
  87. Programs written in this language tend to be efficient

    21% 79%
  88. I would list this language on my resume

    21% 79%
  89. There are many good commercial tools for this language

    19% 81%
  90. This language is likely to be around for a very long time

    19% 81%
  91. Writing code in this language is a lot of work

    19% 81%
  92. This language allows me to write programs where I know exactly what they are doing under the hood

    17% 83%
  93. I would use this language for mobile applications

    15% 85%
  94. This language has a strong static type system

    13% 87%
  95. I know many other people who use this language

    13% 87%
  96. There are many good tools for this language

    11% 89%
  97. This language is best for very large projects

    10% 90%
  98. Third-party libraries are readily available, well-documented, and of high quality

    10% 90%
  99. I use many applications written in this language

    9% 91%
  100. I would use this language for writing server programs

    8% 92%
  101. When I run into problems my colleagues can provide me with immediate help with this language

    8% 92%
  102. I would use this language to write a command-line app

    8% 92%
  103. This language makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot

    7% 93%
  104. There are many good open-source tools for this language

    7% 93%
  105. There is a lot of accidental complexity when writing code in this language

    7% 93%
  106. This language is suitable for real-time applications

    6% 94%
  107. This is a mainstream language

    5% 95%
  108. I would use this language for writing programs for an embedded hardware platform

    3% 97%
  109. There is a wide variety of open source code written in this language

    100%
  110. This is a low level language

    100%

What's going on here?

The absolute rankings are interesting for large scale comparisons but when you want to know about two specific languages it's much more informative to look at how the two fare when they go directly head to head.

Here are all the statements which we've got enough comparisons between Mathematica and C++ to be meaningful and which of the two our users picked.

The order in which we're presenting them is a little arbitrary (sorry), but we've tried to put the things which they're both good at first so as to give you the most interesting picture of it.