Re: Re: Mathematica frustrations...
- To: mathgroup@smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg11664] Re: [mg11612] Re: Mathematica frustrations...
- From: Mark Evans <evans.nospam@gte.net>
- Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 18:35:03 -0500
- Organization: None
- References: <6cgf9k$sd7@smc.vnet.net> <6d0ah6$2jt@smc.vnet.net> <199803200048.TAA05599@smc.vnet.net.>
Anyone like YOU who relies that heavily on % and %n is going to draw bugs like a pile of sugar. What made Microsoft a gigantic success was their dispensing with the DOS command line and their giving us some Windows to play with. I think WRI is seeing the light with the new button and palette features in Mathematica. Click, click instead of type, type. I won't argue that % should disappear, but I disagree with the notion that it can be "absolutely indispensable" or "essential" by any stretch of the imagination. IMHO that's just bad programming practice, too fragile for words. Add one line of code somewhere in your notebook and all the %n's break next time you try to run it. Maybe the new counter systems have a way around that...I would enjoy being enlightened on the subject. :-) Mark Murray Eisenberg wrote: > > Carlos A. Felippa (carlos@mars.Colorado.EDU) wrote: > > : The use of % is a legacy from the original In-Out days of interactive > : command languages like Basic or Unix. It makes no sense for a Notebook > : front end. > > In my work and my students' work with Mathematica we find the % and %% > (and occasionally even %n) absolutely indispensable. The % saves one > the aggravation of re-evaluating a cell and the annoyance of > remembering to use Set (or SetDelayed) -- in symbolic = (or := form, of > course) in a cell before evaluating it. > > : In fact it might be useful to get rid altogether of the In[ ] and Out[ ] > : that still clutter cell boundaries since the numbers that appear > : therein serve no useful purpose. > > I beg to differ: The numbers are essential in lots of computing that I > and my students do. The simplest, most direct thing one can sometimes > do is go back to an earlier cell and re-evaluate it, after editing it > directly or perhaps after editing and re-evaluating some other cell > with relevant parameters. > > The very idea of removing functionality just because YOU don't use it is > unjustified. As is the idea of removing it because of particular > historical origins. > > -- > Murray Eisenberg Internet: > murray@math.umass.edu > Mathematics & Statistics Dept. Voice: 413-545-2859 (W) > University of Massachusetts 413-549-1020 (H) > Amherst, MA 01003 Fax: 413-545-1801