Re: The Mathematica Book, Electronic Media and MathWorld
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg78572] Re: [mg78524] The Mathematica Book, Electronic Media and MathWorld
- From: DrMajorBob <drmajorbob at bigfoot.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 05:42:35 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <f5qitl$5fs$1@smc.vnet.net> <200706270932.FAA01420@smc.vnet.net> <f5vrpf$kar$1@smc.vnet.net> <19724570.1183459933221.JavaMail.root@m35>
- Reply-to: drmajorbob at bigfoot.com
Don't forget the really HUGE advantage of Mathematica's built-in Help over a book: You can execute code in it! I never believe what documentation says, so that's an even bigger factor for me than it otherwise would be. Bobby On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:41:05 -0500, David Park <djmpark at comcast.net> wrote: > Murray has always been a great correspondent who can correct my errors > and > advance any endeavor. > > We almost all love books. They still have some advantage over electronic > media because of their portability. And right now there is probably more > technical material in books than in electronic media. (This however will > quickly change.) They make great collectors items. As technical documents > that is about the end of their advantages. Mathematica notebooks and pdf > documents are far superior - but unfortunately not MathWorld. > > Some of the decisive disadvantages of books and other printed media are: > > 1) They are often full of errors and misprints and can't be easily > updated. > Mathematica notebooks, if written in an active style, are to a large > extent > self-proofing. > > 2) Technical books are often too brief. They don't have room for many > examples, or examples that require larger output. The old Mathematica > Book > was quite long and heavy but still in many places too concise to easily > understand all the commands. The new features would have doubled the size > and weight of the book and still probably have been too concise. > Electronic > media can contain much more material, perhaps even with alternative > approaches that a reader can choose among. Writers of electronic media > don't > have to be as concerned with bulk and space. > > 3) Printed technical books are too expensive. > > 4) Printed technical books are not always more convenient. For example, > many > of them will not lie flat! They are strictly a two-hand operation. How > many > times have you had to work between some book and a Mathematica notebook > and > found that you were always fighting with the book to keep its position? > The > Mathematica help documentation stays open to where you want and you don't > have to change your physical position to access it. At meals I always > like > to read something or other. I can either read magazines or books or > material > on our laptop. I find that I more and more gravitate to the laptop > because > it is easier. The vertical screen is better than the horizontal book and > I > can usually enlarge the type to make it easy to read. And I have access > to > more material from the web. > > However, we are still learning how to write Mathematica notebooks and > electronic media. In my opinion it should be a natural extension of the > classical style that incorporates the active elements of Mathematica. But > there is a lot to complain about in some of the current attempts. > > Take MathWorld. Here is a site that is top notch, A+++, as far as content > and organization go. But in my opinion it is a poor web site because it > does > not adhere to modern web standards. The text, especially in the > equations is > far too small and non-adjustable. It is much smaller and with less line > spacing than any technical book I can pick off my shelf. Also, the font > used > for the equations is quite poor. The web page magnification doesn't work > either because then the inline formulas no longer fit in properly and > overlay parts of the text. Also, sometimes with magnification the text > wraps > properly and sometimes it does not so one has to do horizontal scrolling. > This is a case where electronic media does not live up to its promise - > but > purely for typological and technical reasons and not at all due to the > excellent content. > > -- DrMajorBob at bigfoot.com