Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg77520] Re: [mg77493] Re: [mg77476] Re: [mg77433] Re: [mg77407] Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
- From: DrMajorBob <drmajorbob at bigfoot.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 04:28:04 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <200706080938.FAA03696@smc.vnet.net> <6794958.1181523166855.JavaMail.root@m35>
- Reply-to: drmajorbob at bigfoot.com
As computers get faster and hard-disks get larger, bloated code is the
least of our problems, and slow code in the front end is not much bigger.
Multiple undo is a poor use of WRI's time (in the complicated notebook
environment), for a different reason (I'll get to it).
> How many times have you lost something
> beyond the first undo level in Mathematica?
What if the sequence was bad change, good change, bad, good, good. Won't
multiple undo lose more good changes than bad?
There are better ways we can guard against our own blunders and, as
Andrzej says, there are far more useful features WRI can work on.
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 06:23:15 -0500, Chris Chiasson <chris at chiasson.name>
> 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.
DrMajorBob at bigfoot.com
Prev by Date:
Re: 3D interpolation
Next by Date:
Re: Trouble with a system of equations
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: Re: Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
Next by thread:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: v6: still no multiple undo?