programming languages

Rank

Mathematica vs R

  1. I still discover new features of this language on a fairly regular basis

    100%
  2. This language excels at symbolic manipulation

    100%
  3. Libraries in this language tend to be well documented.

    87% 13%
  4. I often feel like I am not smart enough to write this language

    85% 15%
  5. This language matches it's problem domain particularly well.

    83% 17%
  6. This language is very flexible

    80% 20%
  7. I usually use this language on solo projects

    80% 20%
  8. I am reluctant to admit to knowing this language

    80% 20%
  9. I learned this language early in my career as a programmer

    77% 23%
  10. There are many good commercial tools for this language

    75% 25%
  11. This language is well documented

    75% 25%
  12. This language is minimal

    75% 25%
  13. There is a lot of accidental complexity when writing code in this language

    71% 29%
  14. If my code in this language successfully compiles, there is a good chance my code is correct.

    71% 29%
  15. This language has a very coherent design

    70% 30%
  16. This language has a niche in which it is great

    66% 34%
  17. It is too easy to write code in this language that looks like it does one thing but actually does something else

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

    66% 34%
  19. I rarely have difficulty abstracting patterns I find in my code

    66% 34%
  20. Learning this language significantly changed how I use other languages.

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

    66% 34%
  22. Code written in this language tends to be verbose

    66% 34%
  23. This language has a niche outside of which I would not use it

    66% 34%
  24. I often get angry when writing code in this language

    66% 34%
  25. Writing code in this language is a lot of work

    66% 34%
  26. This language has an annoying syntax

    62% 38%
  27. Code written in this language tends to be very reliable

    62% 38%
  28. If this language didn't exist, I would have trouble finding a satisfactory replacement

    60% 40%
  29. This language would be good for teaching children to write software

    60% 40%
  30. Code written in this language tends to be terse

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

    60% 40%
  32. Programs written in this language tend to play well with others

    60% 40%
  33. The semantics of this language are much different than other languages I know.

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

    60% 40%
  35. This language is unusually bad for beginners

    60% 40%
  36. I would use this language for a web project

    60% 40%
  37. This is a high level language

    60% 40%
  38. This language has many features which feel "tacked on"

    57% 43%
  39. I can imagine this will be a popular language in twenty years time

    57% 43%
  40. I would recommend most programmers learn this language, regardless of whether they have a specific need for it

    57% 43%
  41. I find it easy to write efficient code in this language

    57% 43%
  42. I would like to write more of this language than I currently do

    55% 45%
  43. This language is good for numeric computing

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 4 out of 8 each for R and Mathematica R
  44. I would use this language for mobile applications

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 3 out of 6 each for R and Mathematica R
  45. Code written in this language is very readable

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 3 out of 6 each for R and Mathematica R
  46. I enjoy using this language

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 3 out of 6 each for R and Mathematica R
  47. This language has a high quality implementation

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 3 out of 6 each for R and Mathematica R
  48. This language encourages writing code that is easy to maintain.

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 4 out of 8 each for R and Mathematica R
  49. I know this language well

    46% 54%
    Mathematica 41 out of 76 picked R over Mathematica R
  50. Learning this language improved my ability as a programmer

    44% 56%
  51. I find code written in this language very elegant

    44% 56%
  52. I find this language easy to prototype in

    42% 58%
  53. When I write code in this language I can be very sure it is correct

    42% 58%
  54. I usually use this language on projects with many other members

    42% 58%
  55. This language is likely to have a strong influence on future languages

    42% 58%
  56. The thought that I may still be using this language in twenty years time fills me with dread

    42% 58%
  57. This language is good for scientific computing

    42% 58%
  58. This language has a very dogmatic community

    40% 60%
  59. This language excels at text processing

    40% 60%
  60. I would use this language for a desktop GUI project

    40% 60%
  61. This language is likely to be a passing fad

    40% 60%
  62. This language encourages writing reusable code.

    40% 60%
  63. I would use this language to write a command-line app

    40% 60%
  64. I know many other people who use this language

    40% 60%
  65. I am sometimes embarrassed to admit to my peers that I know this language

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

    40% 60%
  67. This is a mainstream language

    37% 63%
  68. I use this language out of choice

    37% 63%
  69. This language is frequently used for applications it isn't suitable for

    37% 63%
  70. This language is likely to be around for a very long time

    33% 67%
  71. This language is large

    33% 67%
  72. This language is best for very large projects

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

    33% 67%
  74. This language allows me to write programs where I know exactly what they are doing under the hood

    33% 67%
  75. This language makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot

    28% 72%
  76. I would use this language for casual scripting

    28% 72%
  77. This language is well suited for an agile development approach using short iterations.

    28% 72%
  78. I use many applications written in this language

    25% 75%
  79. This language has a good community

    19% 81%
  80. There are many good tools for this language

    19% 81%
  81. I would list this language on my resume

    19% 81%
  82. Developers who primarily use this language often burn out after a few years

    19% 81%
  83. I would use this language for writing server programs

    19% 81%
  84. When I run into problems my colleagues can provide me with immediate help with this language

    16% 84%
  85. This language has a good library distribution mechanism.

    14% 86%
  86. I regularly use this language

    14% 86%
  87. There is a wide variety of open source code written in this language

    12% 88%
  88. There are many good open-source tools for this language

    11% 89%
  89. Third-party libraries are readily available, well-documented, and of high quality

    100%
  90. This is a low level language

    100%
  91. This language is easier to use for it's problem domain by removing unneeded expressiveness (such as not being Turing complete).

    100%
  92. This language is built on a small core of orthogonal features

    100%
  93. This language excels at concurrency

    75% 25%
  94. I enjoy playing with this language but would never use it for "real code"

    75% 25%
  95. This language has a very rigid idea of how things should be done

    25% 75%
  96. Programs written in this language will usually work in future versions of the language

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 2 out of 4 each for R and Mathematica R
  97. The resources for learning this language are of high quality

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 2 out of 4 each for R and Mathematica R
  98. Programs written in this language tend to be efficient

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 2 out of 4 each for R and Mathematica R
  99. This language is expressive

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 2 out of 4 each for R and Mathematica R
  100. It's unusual for me to discover unfamiliar features

    25% 75%
  101. This language has a strong static type system

    25% 75%
  102. This language is suitable for real-time applications

    25% 75%
  103. I would use this language as a scripting language embedded inside a larger application

    25% 75%
  104. I would use this language for writing programs for an embedded hardware platform

    25% 75%
  105. I can imagine using this language in my day job

    25% 75%
  106. I often write things in this language with the intent of rewriting them in something else later

    25% 75%
  107. This language is best for very small projects

    50% 50%
    Mathematica 2 out of 4 each for R and Mathematica R
  108. I use a lot of code written in this language which I really don't want to have to make changes to

    33% 67%
  109. It is easy to tell at a glance what code in this language does

    66% 34%
  110. Code written in this language will usually run in all the major implementations if it runs in one of them.

    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 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.