programming languages

Rank

Mathematica vs R

  1. This language excels at symbolic manipulation

    100%
  2. Code written in this language will usually run in all the major implementations if it runs in one of them.

    85% 15%
  3. If my code in this language successfully compiles, there is a good chance my code is correct.

    81% 19%
  4. I learned this language early in my career as a programmer

    80% 20%
    Mathematica 12 out of 15 picked Mathematica over R R
  5. I often feel like I am not smart enough to write this language

    80% 20%
  6. This is a high level language

    77% 23%
  7. I usually use this language on solo projects

    77% 23%
  8. Libraries in this language tend to be well documented.

    76% 24%
    Mathematica 10 out of 13 picked Mathematica over R R
  9. This language matches it's problem domain particularly well.

    76% 24%
    Mathematica 10 out of 13 picked Mathematica over R R
  10. This language has a very coherent design

    76% 24%
    Mathematica 13 out of 17 picked Mathematica over R R
  11. This language is built on a small core of orthogonal features

    75% 25%
  12. This language is well documented

    75% 25%
  13. I still discover new features of this language on a fairly regular basis

    72% 28%
  14. This language is very flexible

    72% 28%
  15. I enjoy playing with this language but would never use it for "real code"

    71% 29%
  16. The semantics of this language are much different than other languages I know.

    70% 30%
    Mathematica 12 out of 17 picked Mathematica over R R
  17. I am reluctant to admit to knowing this language

    70% 30%
  18. This language is minimal

    69% 31%
  19. There are many good commercial tools for this language

    69% 31%
  20. I rarely have difficulty abstracting patterns I find in my code

    66% 34%
  21. Code written in this language tends to be very reliable

    66% 34%
  22. This language has a high quality implementation

    66% 34%
  23. This language has well-organized libraries with consistent, carefully thought-out interfaces

    64% 36%
  24. Programs written in this language tend to be efficient

    63% 37%
  25. The thought that I may still be using this language in twenty years time fills me with dread

    63% 37%
  26. Programs written in this language will usually work in future versions of the language

    62% 38%
  27. This language excels at concurrency

    62% 38%
  28. This language is expressive

    62% 38%
  29. It is easy to tell at a glance what code in this language does

    62% 38%
  30. This language is easier to use for it's problem domain by removing unneeded expressiveness (such as not being Turing complete).

    60% 40%
  31. This language has a very rigid idea of how things should be done

    60% 40%
  32. This language is good for beginners

    60% 40%
  33. It is easy to debug programs written in this language when it goes wrong

    60% 40%
  34. This language has unusual features that I often miss when using other languages

    58% 42%
  35. I would use this language for a web project

    58% 42%
  36. There is a lot of accidental complexity when writing code in this language

    58% 42%
  37. It is too easy to write code in this language that looks like it does one thing but actually does something else

    57% 43%
  38. Code written in this language tends to be terse

    55% 45%
    Mathematica 10 out of 18 picked Mathematica over R R
  39. I find it easy to write efficient code in this language

    54% 46%
  40. Learning this language significantly changed how I use other languages.

    54% 46%
  41. Programs written in this language tend to play well with others

    54% 46%
  42. This language would be good for teaching children to write software

    54% 46%
  43. I enjoy using this language

    54% 46%
  44. Code written in this language is very readable

    53% 47%
  45. Learning this language improved my ability as a programmer

    53% 47%
  46. This language has many features which feel "tacked on"

    53% 47%
  47. This language is large

    52% 48%
  48. This language has an annoying syntax

    52% 48%
  49. This language has a niche outside of which I would not use it

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 8 out of 16 each for R and Mathematica R
  50. Code written in this language tends to be verbose

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 6 out of 12 each for R and Mathematica R
  51. This language has a very dogmatic community

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 5 out of 10 each for R and Mathematica R
  52. This language is well suited for an agile development approach using short iterations.

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 7 out of 14 each for R and Mathematica R
  53. This language allows me to write programs where I know exactly what they are doing under the hood

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 6 out of 12 each for R and Mathematica R
  54. I would recommend most programmers learn this language, regardless of whether they have a specific need for it

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 5 out of 10 each for R and Mathematica R
  55. I would use this language for writing server programs

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 5 out of 10 each for R and Mathematica R
  56. I usually use this language on projects with many other members

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 5 out of 10 each for R and Mathematica R
  57. It's unusual for me to discover unfamiliar features

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 4 out of 8 each for R and Mathematica R
  58. I would use this language as a scripting language embedded inside a larger application

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 4 out of 8 each for R and Mathematica R
  59. Writing code in this language is a lot of work

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 6 out of 12 each for R and Mathematica R
  60. I find code written in this language very elegant

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 7 out of 14 each for R and Mathematica R
  61. The resources for learning this language are of high quality

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 5 out of 10 each for R and Mathematica R
  62. This language is good for scientific computing

    47% 53%
  63. If this language didn't exist, I would have trouble finding a satisfactory replacement

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

    47% 53%
  65. I find this language easy to prototype in

    46% 54%
  66. I often get angry when writing code in this language

    46% 54%
  67. This language is good for numeric computing

    46% 54%
  68. This language has a niche in which it is great

    46% 54%
  69. I would use this language for mobile applications

    45% 55%
  70. This language is suitable for real-time applications

    45% 55%
  71. This language is unusually bad for beginners

    45% 55%
  72. I would use this language for casual scripting

    45% 55%
  73. I am sometimes embarrassed to admit to my peers that I know this language

    44% 56%
  74. This language encourages writing reusable code.

    44% 56%
  75. Developers who primarily use this language often burn out after a few years

    44% 56%
  76. This language has a strong static type system

    44% 56%
  77. This language excels at text processing

    44% 56%
  78. This language encourages writing code that is easy to maintain.

    42% 58%
  79. I can imagine this will be a popular language in twenty years time

    42% 58%
  80. I know this language well

    42% 58%
    Mathematica 85 out of 148 picked R over Mathematica R
  81. I can imagine using this language in my day job

    41% 59%
  82. I would use this language to write a command-line app

    41% 59%
  83. This language is best for very large projects

    41% 59%
  84. I would use this language for a desktop GUI project

    41% 59%
  85. When I write code in this language I can be very sure it is correct

    41% 59%
  86. This language is likely to be around for a very long time

    40% 60%
  87. This language is best for very small projects

    40% 60%
  88. This language is good for distributed computing

    38% 62%
  89. This language is likely to have a strong influence on future languages

    36% 64%
  90. This language is likely to be a passing fad

    35% 65%
  91. I use this language out of choice

    35% 65%
    Mathematica 11 out of 17 picked R over Mathematica R
  92. I often write things in this language with the intent of rewriting them in something else later

    33% 67%
  93. I know many other people who use this language

    33% 67%
  94. This language has a wide variety of agreed-upon conventions, which are generally adhered to reasonably well, and which increase my productivity

    33% 67%
  95. This language is frequently used for applications it isn't suitable for

    33% 67%
  96. I use many applications written in this language

    33% 67%
  97. I use a lot of code written in this language which I really don't want to have to make changes to

    33% 67%
  98. I would list this language on my resume

    30% 70%
  99. I would use this language for writing programs for an embedded hardware platform

    30% 70%
  100. This is a mainstream language

    29% 71%
    Mathematica 12 out of 17 picked R over Mathematica R
  101. Third-party libraries are readily available, well-documented, and of high quality

    25% 75%
  102. I regularly use this language

    25% 75%
  103. This language has a good library distribution mechanism.

    23% 77%
    Mathematica 10 out of 13 picked R over Mathematica R
  104. This language makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot

    23% 77%
    Mathematica 10 out of 13 picked R over Mathematica R
  105. There are many good open-source tools for this language

    23% 77%
    Mathematica 10 out of 13 picked R over Mathematica R
  106. When I run into problems my colleagues can provide me with immediate help with this language

    19% 81%
  107. This language has a good community

    18% 82%
  108. There is a wide variety of open source code written in this language

    17% 83%
    Mathematica 14 out of 17 picked R over Mathematica R
  109. There are many good tools for this language

    13% 87%
    Mathematica 13 out of 15 picked R over Mathematica R
  110. This is a low level language

    11% 89%

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 R 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.