Re: Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg89439] Re: [mg89427] Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?
- From: Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 06:20:04 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <200806070700.DAA09985@smc.vnet.net> <email@example.com> <200806090629.CAA28134@smc.vnet.net> <6A5A2A4D-AE21-40B3-9D10-646EA8401D41@mimuw.edu.pl>
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 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. >> >