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

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg89473] Re: [mg89439] Re: [mg89427] Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?*From*: Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl>*Date*: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 03:42:50 -0400 (EDT)*References*: <g2b4o8$nm2$1@smc.vnet.net> <200806070700.DAA09985@smc.vnet.net> <g2fuii$2md$1@smc.vnet.net> <200806090629.CAA28134@smc.vnet.net> <6A5A2A4D-AE21-40B3-9D10-646EA8401D41@mimuw.edu.pl> <200806091020.GAA05127@smc.vnet.net> <3508f1db0806090421y2ecda5fcm1e94b671455c9774@mail.gmail.com>

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. >>>> >>> >> >> >>

**References**:**Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?***From:*Jens-Peer Kuska <kuska@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>

**Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?***From:*AES <siegman@stanford.edu>

**Re: Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?***From:*Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz@mimuw.edu.pl>