MathGroup Archive 2007

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

Search the Archive

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

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg77515] Re: [mg77495] Re: [mg77476] Re: [mg77433] Re: [mg77407] Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
  • From: Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at>
  • Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 04:25:27 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <> <> <> <> <> <14694989.1181527374589.JavaMail.root@m35> <>

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> wrote:
>> On 9 Jun 2007, at 20:12, Chris Chiasson wrote:
>>> On 6/9/07, Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at> 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,
>>> --
>> 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

  • Prev by Date: Re: Simplify 0/0 to 1?
  • Next by Date: Re: 6.0 Standard Packages?, New Style Documentation?
  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
  • Next by thread: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: v6: still no multiple undo?