[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: v6: still no multiple undo?
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