MathGroup Archive 2008

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

Search the Archive

Re: Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg89439] Re: [mg89427] Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?
  • From: Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at>
  • Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 06:20:04 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <g2b4o8$nm2$> <> <g2fuii$2md$> <> <>

I really feel compelled to add one more thing. I almost never use  
Microsoft Office, but the reason is not any hostility towards  
Microsoft (the only difference between Microsoft and its rivals that I  
can see is that the former already is where the latter would like to  
be) but simply that I do not have much use for the sort of stuff it  
does. But using Microsoft Office as an exmaple of commercial failure  
that is supposedly threating WRI sounds like a pretty good joke. With  
failure like that who needs success?

Andrzej Kozlowski

On 9 Jun 2008, at 16:49, Andrzej Kozlowski wrote:

> 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>,
>> Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at> 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: Creation and evaluation of polynomials
  • Next by Date: Re: Show and 6.0
  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?
  • Next by thread: Re: Re: Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?