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

MathGroup Archive 2009

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

Search the Archive

Re: Re: Mathematica 7.0.1.0 and some General Comments

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg97212] Re: [mg97189] Re: Mathematica 7.0.1.0 and some General Comments
  • From: peter <plindsay.0 at gmail.com>
  • Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 05:51:32 -0500 (EST)
  • References: <goqphr$lt2$1@smc.vnet.net> <200903070741.CAA17090@smc.vnet.net>

I don't Mathematica could, or should, become the de facto standard for
mathematics communication. Its a bit like insisting that all written
documents from now on must be done in MS Word. However I do think that the
Mathematica Player is an excellent tool and is actually quite a generous
gift from Wolfram Research to the mathematical community.Peter

2009/3/7 ADL <alberto.dilullo at tiscali.it>

> With respect to some of your points, I really believe that the worst
> thing WRI developers could do against Mathematica itself was (and is)
> to hide the bug list and the list of fixes.
> This overall gives the feeling of a substantially unreliable system.
>
> Generally speaking, I am fond of the basic Mathematica structure, I
> use it every day to solve practical issues in my job and also develop
> some rather complex programs, but admittedly would never fully rely on
> a piece of software in which new bugs are introduced all the time,
> also in appearently consolidated areas, and for which fixes are never
> documented and established once for all.
>
> On the contrary, WRI has undertaken the introduction of thousands new
> features, many of which do not appear to work exactly as expected, are
> ofted superficially documented, are difficult to print and study in
> detail and are sometines stubbornly affected by some "suboptimal"
> design, which makes their application counterintuitive or error prone.
> Most Mathematica books are full of astonishing one-liners (perhaps
> 1000 characters long), while a lot of people are still stuck with
> FindRoot, Eigenvectors, FourierTransform, etc etc. To make a simple
> plot, it is often better (sometimes recommended) to quit Mathematica
> and use a general-purpose spreadsheet.
>
> It is surely a strategy, it might support some cash flow, but I do not
> believe it is a winning strategy.
>
> About one / two years ago, WRI proudly declared that they had reached
> the millionth build of Mathematica. Now, there are surely many more.
> Why they did not realize that this very bad advertisement for a sw
> with 6 official versions (at that time) and strong indication of a
> very bad design? This is an explicit declaration that Mathematica is
> not amenable to incremental development, that is the only way towards
> reliability.
>
> I do not understand why and I am sad about it, but after reading this
> Group for about one year and having used Mathematica since version 3,
> to me WRI appears to be strongly determined NOT to become a winner in
> this arena.
>
> ADL
>
>
> On 6 Mar, 10:14, "David Park" <djmp... at comcast.net> wrote:
> ...
> >
> > David Park
> >
> > djmp... at comcast.net
> >
> >  <http://home.comcast.net/~djmpark>http://home.comcast.net/~djmpark/
>
>
>


-- 
Peter Lindsay



  • Prev by Date: Re: A newbee to Mathematica
  • Next by Date: Re: Mathematica 7.0.1.0 and some General Comments
  • Previous by thread: Re: Mathematica 7.0.1.0 and some General Comments
  • Next by thread: Re: Mathematica 7.0.1.0 and some General Comments