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

MathGroup Archive 2012

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

Search the Archive

Re: new functional operator

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg125605] Re: new functional operator
  • From: John Doty <noqsiaerospace at gmail.com>
  • Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 05:45:48 -0500 (EST)
  • Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com
  • References: <jjfd6e$7u7$1@smc.vnet.net> <jjpakk$ov1$1@smc.vnet.net>

On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 1:19:23 AM UTC-6, roby wrote:
> > That creates a information fog that makes *all* Mathematica code harder to understand, and Mathematica much harder to learn than it used to be.
>
> {1, 2, 3, 4} /// f///g
>
>
> > {1, 2, 3, 4} // f /@ # & // g /@ # &
>
> sorry but I absolutly can't agree with your opinion in this case, the
> former expression is more or less fogless and would be much easier to
> understand.
> The latter expression bears a lot of clutter.
>
> Robert

It isn't clutter in any specific piece of code that's the problem: it's all the cluttered documentation. Many of us appreciated the wonderful Mathematica book when it existed, but Mathematica has too many unnecessary functions these days, so a book is impractical. A vast fog of hypertext isn't as easy to navigate as a book. For functions like the one we're discussing, it's much better to define it only when needed. Then, those trying to understand code that *doesn't* use that function (almost all Mathematica code ever written) won't have to waste time looking past it in the documentation.




  • Prev by Date: Re: replace one rule in a list of rules
  • Next by Date: Re: new functional operator
  • Previous by thread: Re: new functional operator
  • Next by thread: Re: new functional operator