Re: WORKBENCH VS MATHEMATICA
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg110358] Re: WORKBENCH VS MATHEMATICA
- From: David Bailey <dave at removedbailey.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 02:29:09 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <hv23ru$5eo$1@smc.vnet.net>
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 www.dbaileyconsultancy.co.uk