Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums
-----
 /
MathGroup Archive
1992
*January
*February
*March
*April
*May
*June
*July
*August
*September
*October
*November
*December
*Archive Index
*Ask about this page
*Print this page
*Give us feedback
*Sign up for the Wolfram Insider

MathGroup Archive 1992

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

What should Mma be?

  • To: MATHGROUP at yoda.physics.unc.edu
  • Subject: What should Mma be?
  • From: heinz at solrt.ups.circe.fr (Schulz)
  • Date: Wed, 02 Dec 92 16:55:57 +0100

Concerning this issue, I certainly feel that the mathematical capabilities deserve
further improvements. On the other hand there seems to be a certain inconsistency on
the part of Wolfram Research:

On the one hand, to name one example, they develop fancy surface colouring schemes for
 graphical
representations which many people probably can not usefully communicate to others for
lack of colour printers, scientific journals accepting coloured pictures, etc.
On the other hand, relatively minor improvments  (or so it seems) like the
possibility of reasonably looking graphics labels (including e.g. subscripting and
greek symbols) haven't occured yet. All the schemes proposed here, going through
graphics converting programs, and re-editing the postscript, are terribly cumbersome,
I find.

To summarize my opinion: emphasis on improvements of the mathematics involved seems
to be a good idea, but why not add a few little extras in the graphics, so that the

H.J. Schulz
Laboratoire de Physique des Solides
Orsay, France





  • Prev by Date: What should Mma be?
  • Next by Date: Re: Vector multiplication??
  • Previous by thread: What should Mma be?
  • Next by thread: Re: What should Mma be?