Re: Re: Re: Mathematica: Long divison for polynomials
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg84058] Re: [mg84044] Re: [mg83975] Re: Mathematica: Long divison for polynomials
- From: DrMajorBob <drmajorbob at bigfoot.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 06:57:49 -0500 (EST)
- References: <200711301018.FAA04867@smc.vnet.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <200712060737.CAA10055@smc.vnet.net> <15250315.1197021739854.JavaMail.root@m35>
- Reply-to: drmajorbob at bigfoot.com
I agree with Daniel completely and, in addition, I'll just point out that
quite a few individuals like myself donate many hours & much energy
answering questions on Mathgroup, for absolutely no compensation but the
chance to learn something in the process and the fun of doing so.
It wouldn't be fun to see half the messages revolve around debating
(arguing incessantly, really) which CAS is best. I've seen and been a
participant in similar time-waster threads off-line, and I'm quite certain
that we're very fortunate (thanks to Steve Christensen) not to have such
things constantly polluting, even dominating, the mailings.
I do sometimes wonder what other CASs do differently, but really, I don't
have time to worry about it, here or anywhere else.
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 02:12:14 -0600, Daniel Lichtblau <danl at wolfram.com>
> Caren Balea wrote:
>> Thank you for your answers!
>> As the reply in the newsgroup is quite slow I did try a different
>> and receive an answer right after 21 minutes (rather than to have to
>> a whole day in this newsgroup):
>> There is also an interesting discussion about how meaningful it is
>> to have a moderation in this particular newsgroup.
>> Frankly, I agree with what they are saying.
>> I'm curious though whether my post is going to be displayed or not.
>> [I am offering a totally free service to those who want to use it.
>> You should probably go elsewhere if it does not meet your needs.
>> -- Moderator]
> There has been substantial commentary in sci.math.symbolic, going back
> several years, over the various ups and downs of having a moderated
> forum comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica. Here is a URL to a reply I made in
> one such thread, a few months ago.
> I've had some involvement with this since the beginning so I think I can
> clarify and address a few issues. Bear in mind that I am replying as one
> who sometimes writes to the forum; neither this reply, nor other posts
> to the group, are part of my official job responsibilities.
> First, the group began life, and remains, as a moderated mailing list
> forum known as MathGroup. It was extended to a Usenet group around 12-13
> years ago. I think this was partly in response to a need to remove the
> many Mathematica-centric posts from sci.math.symbolic. And also there
> was a desire to extend the mailing list reach to more people for whom it
> was an appropriate venue, but who might not otherwise find it.
> So what are the gripes about this moderated group? They fall into a few
> (1) Turnaround time. It takes a day or so for a post to appear. So what
> are the disadvantages to the relatively slow turnaround? One is that
> feedback to the person posing questions is slow. This, I concede, is a
> very real drawback. But short of cloning the moderator, I don't see a
> good way around it. Suffice it to say, the advantages to having a
> moderator (or at least to having the one we have), in my opinion, far
> outweigh this. More below.
> (2) Another perceived drawback to the turnaround time is replication of
> effort in responses. I've seen this issue raised but frankly I think it
> is mostly baloney. The vast majority of responders know good and well
> that others are also likely to respond, and they do so anyway. The fact
> is, Mathematica is a complex program, and often there are multiple ways
> to achieve a stated goal. Responders know this and oftentimes "best
> practice", or several reasonable forms thereof, emerge in the
> multiplicity of responses. About the only actual drawback is that some
> responders might delay an extra day to see if others answer first, and
> this can prolong the process per (1) above.
> (3) There has been persistent griping about the moderation amounting to
> "censorship". Depending on how you define the terms, I suppose perhaps
> this can be a valid sort of remark. But the upshot is that whether you
> call it moderating or censorship, the moderator keeps a huge amount of
> garbage out of the group. If you have not seen similar groups
> effectively crippled by rants, be happy. Likewise with spam. Suffice it
> to say that these problems have arisen and persisted for long stretches
> of time. But never, absolutely never, has such a fate befallen
> comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica. The group has remained consistently
> useable, with outages only in rare times (like two or three over a
> period of a dozen years) when the moderator's systems or ISP have
> suffered grievous damage.
> (4) One particular censorship gripe concerns the rule against mention of
> competing programs. I myself am a bit sympathetic to this one; if there
> were a single restriction I could change, this would be it. That said, I
> think that unrestricted allowance of such could pose a problem. That is,
> we might see the sort of degeneration into rants ("Why can't Mathematica
> do X? Program MZZZ does it?" followed, a day later, by "Why can't
> Mathematica do Y?..."). In past I've seen at least some tendency toward
> such posts, and it is generally thwarted by this restriction, which
> means the restriction has some merit. Also it helps to keep the focus on
> Mathematica per se, which is what the group is all about.
> As to what are the best places to take Mathematica related questions,
> answers will vary and to some extent it can depend on what you need.
> MathGroup aka comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica remains a compelling venue
> when the one day turnaround is acceptable, and high quality of response
> is needed. It is the forum with the most expertise. I think this is in
> large part because the moderator keeps out garbage, thus making the
> signal-to-noise ration quite high. Were it to degenerate to some of the
> things I have seen, I doubt most of us would maintain interest for long.
> So yeah, the turnaround time is an issue, but there are advantages to
> the moderating that, for myself at least, far outweigh this drawback.
> Daniel Lichtblau
> Wolfram Research
DrMajorBob at bigfoot.com
Prev by Date:
Re: forming filename string
Next by Date:
Need features to make kernel and user functions bullet proof
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: Mathematica: Long divison for polynomials
Next by thread:
Re: Mathematica: Long divison for polynomials