|
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg89427] Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?
- From: AES <siegman at stanford.edu>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 02:29:17 -0400 (EDT)
- Organization: Stanford University
- References: <g2b4o8$nm2$1@smc.vnet.net> <200806070700.DAA09985@smc.vnet.net> <g2fuii$2md$1@smc.vnet.net>
In article <g2fuii$2md$1 at smc.vnet.net>,
Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl> wrote:
> This is, of course, a
> perfect illustration of the concept of "integration" as in "the
> world's only fully integrated technical computing system" ....
Some day maybe we can have some further debate on whether the
grandiose concept of a "fully integrated xxxxxxx system" is or is not
always a good thing. As a start:
* Microsoft Office, I suppose, could be called a "fully integrated
<something> system" -- and many people thoroughly dislike it for just
that reason, much preferring a set of smaller, leaner, more modular, set
of independent tools, interacting using internationally standardized
formats, in which, if a better tool for one part of the task comes
along, they can switch to it ,
* Some people would in fact call this latter process "innovation".
Developers of big "fully integrated xxxxxxx systems" tend to try to
suppress innovation that they don't control, suppress other approaches
that aren't part of their system, and also tend to try to suppress
standards and formats that let people go around them. (MS, of course,
has never done anything like this . . . )
* "Fully integrated xxxxxxx systems" in any area of life tend to get
bloated and unwieldy and increasingly difficult to get one's arms
around; the documentation tends to get immense and unreadable and
increasingly difficult to learn; the interface necessarily becomes
increasingly complex and hard to learn; there tend to be increasing
unwanted or unexpected side effects between different parts and
functions of the system, leading to an increase in unpleasant surprises
that can be increasingly difficult to track down. (Sound like some of
the posts that appear on this newsgroup?)
I guess I'm at base a modular type -- I can appreciate and handle, just
barely, Mathematica at its present size. I don't believe that viewing
Mathematica as "the world's only fully integrated technical computing
(and technical communication?) system" is a good, or desirable, or for
that matter even achievable outcome, and the warning bells resulting
from pushing toward this goal -- if that's what it is -- are already
ringing loudly.
Prev by Date:
Re: A question about N[...]
Next by Date:
Re: A question about N[...]
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?
Next by thread:
Re: Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?
|