Re: Applications and Packages, WRI Strikes Out!
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg131067] Re: Applications and Packages, WRI Strikes Out!
- From: David Bailey <dave at removedbailey.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 02:34:35 -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$1@smc.vnet.net> <koprg8$cgp$1@smc.vnet.net> <korj9h$jcp$1@smc.vnet.net>
On 07/06/2013 04:16, Michael Weyrauch wrote: > David, > >> >> 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! > > well, one really good reason is the multiple Undo facility in the > workbench as well as the interface to a versioning system. And the > possibility to produce standard documentation as foreseen by Wolfram. > > I personally like the code formatting in the workbench. And also I find > it extremely convenient to use The lack of multiple UNDO is an extraordinary omission, as is the lack of a documented way to produce standard documentation inside Mathematica. Unfortunately, I feel these omissions may be motivated by a desire to make the workbench more attractive. I created my own code layout mechanism, so I don't miss this feature. Versioning might indeed need a different tool - but maybe something more dedicated to that task. To be fair, I tried the workbench years ago, and simply gave up. Maybe this disqualifies me from commenting on later versions, but I suspect a lot of people may have had a similar experience. I'd only want to try it again, if it could display maths properly. David Bailey http://www.dbaileyconsultancy.co.uk