Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums / MathGroup Archive
-----

MathGroup Archive 2008

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

Search the Archive

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


Maybe you should offer to take over the job of moderating this list  
(unfortunately unpaid, I believe). Until you do, I suggest you leave  
these things to the judgement of the current one, as I do. There is  
also such a thing as filters.

Andrzej Kozlowski


On 9 Jun 2008, at 20:21, peter lindsay wrote:

> 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: Notebook Options
  • 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?