Re: Applications and Packages, WRI Strikes Out!
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg131057] Re: Applications and Packages, WRI Strikes Out!
- From: David Annetts <david.annetts at iinet.net.au>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 07:51:29 -0400 (EDT)
- Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com
- Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@wolfram.com
- Delivered-to: mathgroup-outx@smc.vnet.net
- Delivered-to: mathgroup-newsendx@smc.vnet.net
- References: <komok1$1uv$1@smc.vnet.net> <20130606112908.6C3CC69EF@smc.vnet.net>
Hi David, My recollection was that the late Jens-Per Kuska posted to MathGroup how to do this. D. On 6/06/2013 19:29, David Bailey wrote: > On 05/06/2013 08:16, djmpark wrote: >> One usage of Mathematica could be as an integrated research, developmental, >> educational and communication medium for mathematics and technical subjects. >> It's great advantages are its active calculation and dynamics and the >> ability to document (with Workbench) and preserve active usable knowledge. >> It is an organized method to build up capability. I always thought this was >> an implied vision and goal for Mathematica but perhaps I am mistaken. >> >> >> >> The fact is that the Workbench/Application facilities are only just barely >> adequate and then only with ad hoc methods suggested by WRI people, which >> either produce error messages (that we are supposed to ignore) or don't work >> at all, or that require redoing hundreds of pages of documentation! Much of >> the work has to be done by editing underlying expressions. The whole thing >> is ill-designed, neglected and shoddily implemented. WRI can add all the >> doo-dads they want but without the Application capability Mathematica is >> just a super fancy calculator, dynamic information retriever, and minor >> programming language for stand-alone results that will be copied out to >> other media. >> > Please note that I have written up a complete method for generating > package documentation without using the Workbench. If anyone has > difficulty, please let me know. > > I don't think the workbench will ever really be integrated into > Mathematica - not least because it can't display the complete > Mathematica character set! > > I haven't tried the workbench for years, but when I did, I found it used > a totally different nomenclature - I agree completely with David Park. > > I can't imagine why anyone would want to edit their package files in the > workbench, when there is a superb package file editor built right in to > Mathematica! This will read a .m file, display it in StandardForm, let > you edit it and execute code as if it were a notebook. You can also add > headings (but not colour), and when you save the result, any output > cells are discarded and the headings are stored as specially coded > Mathematica comments. This means the next time you edit the package > file, the headings come back up again immediately. > > Unless I really want to save the output, I use .m files for almost > everything. Often I find it is more convenient not to save the output - > just re-execute the .m file (which needn't hold a package, of course) > when I re-load it. > > I'm not sure if WRI downplay this feature because the workbench > 'competes' with it, but honestly, they should forget the workbench, and > build on Mathematica! > > I know the idea of the workbench is that people can do mixed language > programming, but I have developed a lot of Java/Mathematica code using > Notepad++ to edit the Java, and the above mentioned package editor. > > David Bailey > http://www.dbaileyconsultancy.co.uk > > >
- References:
- Re: Applications and Packages, WRI Strikes Out!
- From: David Bailey <dave@removedbailey.co.uk>
- Re: Applications and Packages, WRI Strikes Out!