MathGroup Archive 2010

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

Search the Archive


  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg110358] Re: WORKBENCH VS MATHEMATICA
  • From: David Bailey <dave at>
  • Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 02:29:09 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <hv23ru$5eo$>

On 13/06/10 09:11, J and B wrote:
> In writing code which is the preferred method, Work Bench or Mathematica?
> In ether one, why do you use it vs. the other?

Much of my work uses J/Link and accesses compiled Java code, so I 
suppose the WB should be useful to me.

However, when I tried WB it seemed hard to learn and not very well 
integrated with Mathematica, so I use Mathematica to edit and test 
Mathematica code, and various batch processes to compile the Java code 
and assemble the various files in my packages.

I guess some people like Integrated Development Environments (IDE's) 
that do all sorts of (hopefully helpful) things behind the scenes, 
others prefer to keep complete control over what is going on, and use 
batch files or bash scripts.

One specific problem with the WB is that it can't display all the 
Mathematica characters. By contrast, the FrontEnd editor does a splendid 
job of editing .m files, and displays the full range of characters. I 
think this editor, which came in at version 6, made the need for the WB 
less important.

The standard way to integrate package documentation is to use the WB, 
however, David Reiss and I have figured out how to do this from within 
Mathematica. The beauty of performing a task like this outside an IDE is 
that you can set it up as a sequence of commands that can be re-executed 
as required, rather than remembering a string of mouse clicks!

David Bailey

  • Prev by Date: Re: Can you tell me what is wrong with this program
  • Next by Date: Re: Dynamic window popup question
  • Previous by thread: Re: WORKBENCH VS MATHEMATICA
  • Next by thread: Using mathematica to read website