Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg77501] Re: [mg77495] Re: [mg77476] Re: [mg77433] Re: [mg77407] Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
- From: DrMajorBob <drmajorbob at bigfoot.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 04:18:06 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <200706080938.FAA03696@smc.vnet.net> <200706090943.FAA17991@smc.vnet.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <06D466A7-0D44-40DB-ACB5-F488E9D2B08B@mimuw.edu.pl> <email@example.com> <14694989.1181527374589.JavaMail.root@m35> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4809601.1181531584723.JavaMail.root@m35>
- Reply-to: drmajorbob at bigfoot.com
In Excel, if you copy a cell into another cell, you've also changed it, usually; I like layered undo in that situation. Excel is a much easier environment in which to PROVIDE multiple undo, too. Overall, though, I agree with Andrzej that good work habits are the best protection against errors. Bobby On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:12:49 -0500, Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl> wrote: > I agree. I think lots of "features" of programs like word-processors, > spread-sheets etc., would not be needed if people were willing simply to > adjust sensibly their working habits. They would gain better performance > and better working habits. > > Andrzej Kozlowski > > > On 11 Jun 2007, at 11:58, DrMajorBob wrote: > >> If I have useful stuff in a cell, but I need to edit it, and I'm afraid >> I might delete things I need, add things I don't need, change things >> that are already perfect... well... >> >> I just copy the cell and paste it above or below, and I edit the copy, >> leaving the original alone! >> >> Or, if there's a lot of editing going on, I copy/save the whole file! >> >> Later, when I've gotten moronic and made a mistake (it happens!), the >> original is still there. I can copy/paste between the two versions >> until I'm happy, the code's happy, and nobody else cares! >> >> That's WAY more flexible than multiple undo could ever be, isn't it?? >> >> I mean, what if the change three layers back was bad, but the last TWO >> changes were great (and time-consuming)? How can undo help with that? >> How can I even keep track of which changes were good and which were >> bad, with undo? I can't! >> >> WRI already provided copy, cut, paste, color-codes for missing brackets >> and undefined symbols, automatic structure-based indentation... haven't >> they done enough? >> >> Really, at some point, you gotta wonder... could it BE any sweeter than >> this? >> >> Bobby >> >> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 06:24:17 -0500, Andrzej Kozlowski >> <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl> wrote: >> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> >> --DrMajorBob at bigfoot.com > > -- DrMajorBob at bigfoot.com