[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Re: Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg89469] Re: [mg89439] Re: [mg89427] Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?
*From*: "peter lindsay" <plindsay at mcs.st-and.ac.uk>
*Date*: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 03:42:05 -0400 (EDT)
*References*: <g2b4o8$nm2$1@smc.vnet.net> <200806070700.DAA09985@smc.vnet.net>
am I the only one here who finds the tone of some of these messages
unnecessarily combative ?
Peter Lindsay
__
2008/6/9 Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at 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.
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Prev by Date:
**Re: Show and 6.0**
Next by Date:
**Re: Re: Inequalities or histogram or something.......**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Re: Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?**
Next by thread:
**Re: Re: Re: Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?**
| |