Re: Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg89438] Re: [mg89427] Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?
- From: Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 06:19:52 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <200806070700.DAA09985@smc.vnet.net> <email@example.com> <200806090629.CAA28134@smc.vnet.net>
You seem to be unable to grasp two fundamental facts. 1. Mathematica is "at heart" a programming language. "Fully integrated" in this context means "fully programmable by means of the Mathematica programming language". Although it is clear that you do not care about that (and I am not sure you really understand what it means) but it is important to those who develop various Mathematica applications and, indirectly, to all those who use them. 2. The business model you are suggesting for Mathematica has already been tried. I am not allowed to list names of "competitive programs" here, but if I were I could produce quite a long list systems that have tried to follow exactly the approach you consider idea and as a result their development has now been abandoned or they are available as freeware and developed by volunteers. You could even try one of them yourself. One of the reasons why Mathematica has not so far ended up in the same situation is that it has chosen a completely different model, which happens to appeal to much more important customers than retired university professors. Andrzej Kozlowski On 9 Jun 2008, at 15:29, AES wrote: > 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. >