Re: Re: Re: Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg77493] Re: [mg77476] Re: [mg77433] Re: [mg77407] Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
- From: "Chris Chiasson" <chris at chiasson.name>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 07:23:15 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <200706080938.FAA03696@smc.vnet.net>
On 6/9/07, Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl> wrote: > The idea that people always run the best software they could seems > rather doubtful to me, but is completely irrelevant. I think you > completely missed the point of the article, which does not claim the > older software was better, but only that a lot of new software > (certainly not all) is "bloated" - a completely different thing. Did > you really think that the reason I posted this link was because I > would rather use Mathematica 1 than Mathematica 6? Andrzej Kozlowski, I read the article when it was linked from (I think) Slashdot a while ago, so I have had time to think about it and form an opinion. Basically, I do believe that software bloat does exist. However, many features, while they may be computationally inefficient, are actually quite convenient and useful. How many times have you lost something beyond the first undo level in Mathematica? Wouldn't multiple undo levels have been useful? I understand that the feature will decrease performance (even further, heh), but I do not think the optimum balance of features vs. performance has been attained here. Sincerely, -- http://chris.chiasson.name/
- References:
- Re: Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
- From: "Barthelet, Luc" <lucb@ea.com>
- Re: Re: v6: still no multiple undo?