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

MathGroup Archive 2009

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

Search the Archive

Re: Re: Viewing packages in mathematica

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg102779] Re: [mg102755] Re: Viewing packages in mathematica
  • From: Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl>
  • Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 06:33:09 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <200908230932.FAA02210@smc.vnet.net> <10084375.1251080623042.JavaMail.root@n11> <h6tv7b$drf$1@smc.vnet.net> <200908261143.HAA11440@smc.vnet.net>

On 26 Aug 2009, at 13:43, AES wrote:

> In article <h6tv7b$drf$1 at smc.vnet.net>,
> "David Park" <djmpark at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> So that is what happens with Mathematica. One wants to work on  
>> math, or on
>> some technical project, but one is always sucked down into a morass  
>> of
>> undocumented features, and computer science, and guessing. One  
>> spends 95% of
>> one's time working on Mathematica problems and 5% actually doing  
>> something
>> interesting!
>>
>
> My God, David!  It seems to me you have suddenly started to sound
> exactly like me, before I more or less gave up on posting on these
> issues and tried to get refocused on "actually doing something
> interesting" myself.
>
> Let me just say again:  I believe the core lesson in this saga -- or  
> to
> phrase it differently, the core cause of this disaster -- is the  
> attempt
> (one might say, if one wanted to be nasty about it, the megalomaniacal
> attempt) to have one single massive app that will be all things,  
> provide
> all tools and capabilities, to all users, rather than some kind of  
> much
> more modular approach.
>
> Can't be done, has never been done in this field.  Causes all kinds of
> problems, which get increasingly unsolvable as the basic system gets
> larger and expands out of control; ultimately suppresses creative
> innovation rather than enabling it.   Very sad, especially given the
> massive talent, massive accomplishments, and massive innovations that
> have now gotten so entrapped in the congealing molasses of  
> Mathematica.
>


I think the real lesson is that one should be careful what one posts  
on this forum as there are always some "users" waiting for the  
opportunity to twist one's words and give them a spin completely  
different form the one intended.
And just by the way, in over ten years of actively using Mathematica I  
don't think there has been one day when I "spent pends 95% of my time  
working on Mathematica and 5% actually doing something interesting".  
In fact it has always been exactly the opposite. Which is way I know a  
few things about those aspects of Mathematica that interest me  
(symbolic algebra, random number generation, etc.), less about those  
that I only use for presentation (graphics, typesetting) and  nothing  
at all about many others. I have never felt the need to change this.  
And just in case, let me state once and for all, that I have never  
found anything in your posts that I at the same time understood and  
agreed with (any seeming agreement has always been based on a  
misunderstanding) so please do not assume that if something that I  
write accidently sounds like one of your opinions I have come round to  
your viewpoint. Clearly, to quote your own words, "our minds work in  
entirely different ways".

Andrzej Kozlowski


  • Prev by Date: Re: Re: Viewing packages in mathematica
  • Next by Date: Re: InverseFunction of a CDF
  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: Viewing packages in mathematica
  • Next by thread: Re: Re: Viewing packages in mathematica