Re: Usages Messages
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg94863] Re: Usages Messages
- From: David Bailey <dave at removedbailey.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 06:37:58 -0500 (EST)
- References: <gj2cat$fsr$1@smc.vnet.net> <gj55k3$c6u$1@smc.vnet.net>
AES wrote: > In article <gj2cat$fsr$1 at smc.vnet.net>, > "David Park" <djmpark at comcast.net> wrote: > >> Usage messages are extremely useful but they have gotten caught up and >> tangled in the evolution of Mathematica so that in trying to do too much >> they end up doing too little. >> > > Hmmm -- David, I think you might be learning! > > Might this thought be broadened to the idea that _Mathematica itself_, > having gotten "caught and entangled" in an objective of trying to be > able to do, not just "too much", but more or less _everything_ anyone > might want to do within a single program, has evolved into a system > that, as a result, ends up being hard to use to do almost anything? > > [E.g., syntax and command structure so massive and complex as to be > almost unlearnable, unsatisfactory user interface, massive but still > mostly unsatisfactory user documentation, innumerable "gotchas" and > unexpected interactions between commands, and so on.] > The vast majority of new features are accessed via new command names, so unless you use reserved names as your own, you should have very little trouble using Mathematica 7 as if it were Mathematica 4.2 - with a few obvious differences in the area of graphics. I don't suppose anyone - even Stephen Wolfram - knows the entire set of commands with all their variants - but why would anyone ever need to? David Bailey http://www.dbaileyconsultancy.co.uk