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

Re: Re: Re: Re: v6: still no multiple undo?

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg77495] Re: [mg77476] Re: [mg77433] Re: [mg77407] Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
• From: Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl>
• Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 07:24:17 -0400 (EDT)
• References: <200706080938.FAA03696@smc.vnet.net> <200706090943.FAA17991@smc.vnet.net> <acbec1a40706090337i64852d8cja3b1b942c7b29fec@mail.gmail.com> <06D466A7-0D44-40DB-ACB5-F488E9D2B08B@mimuw.edu.pl> <acbec1a40706090412u7c2da126nf291c7d4628d7c4a@mail.gmail.com>

On 9 Jun 2007, at 20:12, Chris Chiasson wrote:

> On 6/9/07, Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl> wrote:
>> *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate 
>> (tm) Pro*
>> 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/

There are a few features that are useful to everyone, and there are  
many that are useful only to some but (unless they are made somehow  
optional), will slow down everyone, forcing people either to get new  
hardware or give up other features that they really need by having to  
stick with older versions.
I agree that a multiple undo would occasionally be useful, but I  
certainly would not pay the price of having my computer paralyzed for  
a few minutes every time time I save. Besides, I can think of many  
other features, more directly relevant to the main purpose of  
Mathematica, that I would rather have than this one. Of course a  
simple kind of multiple undo, one that only undoes typing and not  
evaluation, might not present any problems, though it would hardly be  
worth making so much fuss about. Anything that would bring my  
computer to a halt is unacceptable to me, however nice it might be  
for people who  alsways have the latest hardware. All I wanted to  
point out is that there is also this aspect to features like this one  
and I hope that WRI does not forget about it when designing new  
versions.

Andrzej Kozlowski

• References:
  • Re: Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
    • From: "Barthelet, Luc" <lucb@ea.com>
  • Re: Re: Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
    • From: Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz@mimuw.edu.pl>