Re: Range of Use of Mathematica
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg89043] Re: Range of Use of Mathematica
- From: David Bailey <dave at Remove_Thisdbailey.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 03:55:30 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <g0m8tt$14$1@smc.vnet.net> <g0rkfr$dtv$1@smc.vnet.net> <200805200627.CAA23235@smc.vnet.net> <g11qvh$a6r$1@smc.vnet.net> <200805220637.CAA22441@smc.vnet.net> <g15qp8$pe6$1@smc.vnet.net>
Brett Champion wrote: > 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 > Brett, Do you offer video versions of these seminars so that we can watch them at a convenient time? David Bailey http://www.dbaileyconsultancy.co.uk
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Re: Range of Use of Mathematica
- From: Brett Champion <brettc@wolfram.com>
- Re: Re: Range of Use of Mathematica
- From: Brett Champion <brettc@wolfram.com>
- Re: Re: Range of Use of Mathematica
- 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