Re: Re: Range of Use of Mathematica
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg88998] Re: [mg88958] Re: Range of Use of Mathematica
- From: Brett Champion <brettc at wolfram.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 03:08:07 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <g0m8tt$14$1@smc.vnet.net> <g0rkfr$dtv$1@smc.vnet.net> <200805200627.CAA23235@smc.vnet.net> <g11qvh$a6r$1@smc.vnet.net> <200805220637.CAA22441@smc.vnet.net>
On May 22, 2008, at 1:37 AM , David Bailey wrote: > Andrzej Kozlowski wrote: >> On 20 May 2008, at 15:27, David Bailey wrote: >> >>> One sign of bloat, is that there are now two major interfaces - >>> notebook >>> and Workbench (not to mention Math.exe) and such a profusion of >>> commands >>> and options that even those of us that use the product regularly >>> cannot >>> hope to be familiar with more than a smallish subset. There are also >>> two >>> help systems! This has, unfortunately, impacted on the quality of >>> documentation. My advice to a beginner would be to read the V5.0 or >>> even >>> V4.0 documentation (plus a few tips about the changes in Graphics) >>> to >>> get some idea of the way the system works. >> >> >> I think one should not loose sight of in my opinion, a very >> essential >> fact, which is that the Mathematica Kernel, has remained largely >> unchanged, except (of course) for continual enhancement by addition >> of >> new functions, which only make it more efficient and powerful (and >> make programing considerably easier). What this means is, that people >> who see themselves essentially as Kernel users, are not in any >> fundamental away affected by any of the changes you are mentioning >> above. I know, because I consider myself one of them. I have never >> tried using Workbench (even though I have downloaded it), and I have >> not even made a serious effort to learn how MakeBoxes etc, works. I >> still write all research in TeX. I know that it is possible to use >> FrontEndToken etc, and if I even wanted to do so I know where to find >> the documentation - but I have never found any incentive to do this. >> However, I have become interested in the new Dynamic functionality, >> partly because I think it is a great teaching tool and partly because >> of the Demonstrations project, but this is really the first new >> addition to the Front End that has interested me. I am sure that I am >> not alone. In fact, Wolfram has a different set of people working on >> the Kernel and on the Front End, and I am sure that there are people >> in the Kernel group whose knowledge of the workings of the Front End >> isn't much greater than mine. >> >> I mention this because even though I have not, until recently, been >> very interested in the Front End, I have never been in anyway >> inconvenience by the developments that have taken place in that area. >> True, Mathematica has grown larger, but not more than have my hard >> disks or RAM. I therefore, see none of the problems you mention or >> that seem to worry AES. I am a mathematician and intend to remain >> one. >> I use Mathematica in the way that it was originally advertised, as a >> "system for doing mathematics by computer". The most far reaching >> change in the program that was ever made happened, in fact, in >> version >> 2, when the Kernel was separated from the Front End. Sometime little >> later WRI changed its advertising slogan to something like "the >> world's only fully integrated technical computing system". That, of >> course, shows clearly the strategic direction that WRI chose and it >> has consistently followed since. But for me it has always remained "a >> system for doing mathematics by computer". In spite of that, I see no >> reason to complain, because I have never found the slightest conflict >> between these two "roles" of Mathematica. I have never found , for >> example, that the development of Mathematica's typesetting >> capabilities has in any way adversely affected any of Mathematica's >> numerical or algebraic ones, which are the ones that really matter to >> me. >> So I really still fail to see what this whole discussion is supposed >> to be about. I particularly, I can't understand why someone who keeps >> saying that Mathematica does not need publishing or presentation >> capabilities etc. and should only be used for computations would at >> the same time complain about the supposed lack of documentations of >> functionality which, according to him, should not be there in the >> first place. >> >> Andrzej Kozlowski >> >> >> > Obviously, WRI are very reluctant to remove functionality, so our code > goes on working from version to version. That is great, but we surely > also want newcomers to find Mathematica easy to use. > > Unless a new user decides to go on a course - with all the extra > expense > that involves - they have to try to get an overview of the system and > decide which features are important to learn about. I suspect that > this > is not as easy as it may seem to those of us that have used > Mathematica > for years, and know how it all fits together. I'll point out that we also offer seminars on a variety of topics that are free, except for an hour or so of your time. You can find more information at http://www.wolfram.com/services/education/seminars/. Brett Champion Wolfram Research
- References:
- Re: Range of Use of Mathematica
- From: David Bailey <dave@Remove_Thisdbailey.co.uk>
- Re: Range of Use of Mathematica
- From: David Bailey <dave@Remove_Thisdbailey.co.uk>
- Re: Range of Use of Mathematica