Mathematica 9 is now available
Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums / MathGroup Archive
-----

MathGroup Archive 2010

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

Search the Archive

Re: Re: Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg106419] Re: [mg106410] Re: [mg106370] Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness
  • From: DrMajorBob <btreat1 at austin.rr.com>
  • Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 04:47:43 -0500 (EST)
  • References: <hic33e$595$1@smc.vnet.net> <201001111027.FAA23268@smc.vnet.net>
  • Reply-to: drmajorbob at yahoo.com

I never said the change was a good idea. I've said some of us learned from  
the thread, so it was worth (some) discussion.

And I DID say that WRI has broken plenty of user code in the past.

Ask David Park about colors changing their Head... or anybody (virtually  
everyone) who had graphics output as side-effects in every one of their  
notebooks.

Anybody who used Show was probably forced to reexamine that code.

Et cetera.

Bobby

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:38:12 -0600, Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl>  
wrote:

> The obvious argument against doing this is that there is no evidence at  
> all that there is a demand would actually justify any effort in this  
> direction.
>
> So far I have noticed just two voices in favor, the person who once  
> wrote a Mathematica parser that has never been used by anyone (as far as  
> I can tell), you and that seems to be all. Even the OP, after his post  
> was answer, did not, as far as I can tell, support the idea of adding  
> new facilities to Mathematica so that he would not need to learn about  
> FullForm.
> On the other hand, I have seen quite many people writing that they see  
> no need for anything of this kind (I am not adding myself to their  
> number).
>
> Obviously no well run company would ever embark on spending resources on  
> something that may end up being never (or almost never) used.
>
> Andrzej Kozlowski
>
>
> On 12 Jan 2010, at 08:54, DrMajorBob wrote:
>
>> WRI has blithely broken user code in the past, so Bill's argument that
>> they shouldn't in THIS case rings hollow.
>>
>> Bobby
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 04:27:30 -0600, Richard Fateman
>> <fateman at cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Rowe wrote:
>>>> On 1/8/10 at 4:15 AM, fateman at cs.berkeley.edu (Richard Fateman)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Rowe said ...
>>>>> "Again, the choice is either understand this behavior and live with
>>>>> it or find different software. There isn't any other productive
>>>>> choice."
>>>>
>>>>> Well, reporting something as a bug and hoping it will be fixed is
>>>>> another choice.
>>>>
>>>> Reporting a behavior that works as designed as a bug and hoping
>>>> it will be "fixed" seems very unproductive to me.
>>>
>>> When one first reports a behavior that one believes is a bug, the
>>> natural hope is that it will be fixed.  To think otherwise is kind of
>>> pessimistic, perhaps depressing.  That's probably what motivated the
>>> original poster (not me.)
>>>
>>>> What is there
>>>> to "fix" if the program performs as designed?
>>>
>>> 1. There are many many changes, some incompatible, to programs that
>>> worked as designed in earlier versions of Mathematica. The design was
>>> apparently deemed unsatisfactory.
>>> 2. All programs perform as programmed. Absent any different design
>>> document, one could say that all programs operate as designed. After
>>> all, the performance of the program is completely designed by the
>>> program text, and it operates entirely according to the design.
>>> This is the Peewee Herman argument ("I meant to do that").
>>>>
>>>>> And writing a version of the facility that does the
>>>>> right thing is another choice. (Any takers?)
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me, the effort to do this for replacement rules and
>>>> ensure the result doesn't cause other problems is far greater
>>>> than the effort needed to understand the current design and use
>>>> it to get your desired result.
>>>
>>> You don't seem to understand "version of the facility".  No one would  
>>> be
>>> forced to use such a version, and therefore one could always use the
>>> original version so as to be compatible with previous design (mistakes,
>>> features, whatever).
>>>>
>>>>> Either of these could be "productive".
>>>>
>>>> This is highly debatable.
>>>
>>> Apparently :)
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Are Mathematica design decisions sacred or something?
>>>>
>>>> Of course Mathematica design decisions are not sacred.
>>>
>>> Yet you say proposing changes would be "unproductive", quoting from  
>>> your
>>> message above.
>>>
>>>  But it is
>>>> highly desirable new versions of Mathematica run code written
>>>> for earlier versions.
>>>
>>> Of course, but that is not enforced by WRI. Why should you enforce it?
>>> Your view would make it impossible to improve anything e.g. new
>>> integration results, which would be incompatible with previous  
>>> versions,
>>> which might (for example) depend on certainly integration problems NOT
>>> being done by the Integrate program.
>>>
>>>> Altering design decisions almost certainly
>>>> means the new version will not run some code written for earlier
>>>> versions.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. Sometimes the change will return all results that were
>>> previously computed, but will provide functionality over a new domain
>>> too, as Integrate.
>>>
>>> One could have a situation in which all code written for the previous
>>> version (that worked) will continue to work.
>>>
>>> A possible incompatibility would be one where previously the code said
>>> "error, cannot compute this"   and now it returns an answer.
>>>
>>> While it may have its place in the world of software, being compatible
>>> with all previous design decisions (and bugs!) is not a very attractive
>>> plan for a software system such as Mathematica.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> So, altering design decisions is not something that
>>>> should be done lightly.
>>>
>>> That's why it should be discussed! Not dismissed out of hand.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe the existence of users who have not yet taken
>>>> the time to understand the current design is sufficient cause to
>>>> change the current design.
>>>
>>> Again, you insist that I am proposing changing the current design.
>>> 1. I think the current design is wrong. (or woefully underdocumented)
>>> 2. I think a better facility can be designed and implemented.
>>>
>>>> Nor do I think you have made a strong
>>>> enough case to warrant a design change in this case.
>>>
>>> There are certainly arguments that this particular  rule/replacement
>>> facility "works" for writing certain low-level programs and that any
>>> change which would alter the results or slow down the computation  
>>> should
>>> be avoided, at least for these pre-existing programs.  There are
>>> also clear arguments that a different facility should be presented
>>> to the (less sophisticated) user,  e.g. original poster.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But on this second point, I am not the one who needs to be
>>>> convinced. It is someone at WRI who could actually implement a
>>>> change and their management.
>>>
>>> I disagree.  All you have to do is use your experience, skill, and
>>> imagination, to think about what a GOOD substitution facility should do
>>> as to not confuse someone who merely knows mathematics, and does not
>>> have an interest in learning the subtleties of FullForm, Reduce,
>>> Eliminate, ....  Your ideas could then be implemented in a newly
>>> designed additional facility.
>>>
>>> RJF
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> DrMajorBob at yahoo.com
>>
>


-- 
DrMajorBob at yahoo.com


  • Prev by Date: Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness
  • Next by Date: Re: Re: Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness
  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness
  • Next by thread: Re: Re: Re: Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness