Re: Re: Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg89469] Re: [mg89439] Re: [mg89427] Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?
- From: "peter lindsay" <plindsay at mcs.st-and.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 03:42:05 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <g2b4o8$nm2$1@smc.vnet.net> <200806070700.DAA09985@smc.vnet.net>
am I the only one here who finds the tone of some of these messages unnecessarily combative ? Peter Lindsay __ 2008/6/9 Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl>: > I really feel compelled to add one more thing. I almost never use > Microsoft Office, but the reason is not any hostility towards > Microsoft (the only difference between Microsoft and its rivals that I > can see is that the former already is where the latter would like to > be) but simply that I do not have much use for the sort of stuff it > does. But using Microsoft Office as an exmaple of commercial failure > that is supposedly threating WRI sounds like a pretty good joke. With > failure like that who needs success? > > Andrzej Kozlowski > > > On 9 Jun 2008, at 16:49, Andrzej Kozlowski wrote: > >> You seem to be unable to grasp two fundamental facts. >> >> 1. Mathematica is "at heart" a programming language. "Fully >> integrated" in this context means "fully programmable by means of >> the Mathematica programming language". Although it is clear that you >> do not care about that (and I am not sure you really understand what >> it means) but it is important to those who develop various >> Mathematica applications and, indirectly, to all those who use them. >> >> 2. The business model you are suggesting for Mathematica has already >> been tried. I am not allowed to list names of "competitive programs" >> here, but if I were I could produce quite a long list systems that >> have tried to follow exactly the approach you consider idea and as a >> result their development has now been abandoned or they are >> available as freeware and developed by volunteers. You could even >> try one of them yourself. >> >> One of the reasons why Mathematica has not so far ended up in the >> same situation is that it has chosen a completely different model, >> which happens to appeal to much more important customers than >> retired university professors. >> >> Andrzej Kozlowski >> >> >> On 9 Jun 2008, at 15:29, AES wrote: >> >>> In article <g2fuii$2md$1 at smc.vnet.net>, >>> Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl> wrote: >>> >>>> This is, of course, a >>>> perfect illustration of the concept of "integration" as in "the >>>> world's only fully integrated technical computing system" .... >>> >>> Some day maybe we can have some further debate on whether the >>> grandiose concept of a "fully integrated xxxxxxx system" is or is not >>> always a good thing. As a start: >>> >>> * Microsoft Office, I suppose, could be called a "fully integrated >>> <something> system" -- and many people thoroughly dislike it for just >>> that reason, much preferring a set of smaller, leaner, more >>> modular, set >>> of independent tools, interacting using internationally standardized >>> formats, in which, if a better tool for one part of the task comes >>> along, they can switch to it , >>> >>> * Some people would in fact call this latter process "innovation". >>> Developers of big "fully integrated xxxxxxx systems" tend to try to >>> suppress innovation that they don't control, suppress other >>> approaches >>> that aren't part of their system, and also tend to try to suppress >>> standards and formats that let people go around them. (MS, of >>> course, >>> has never done anything like this . . . ) >>> >>> * "Fully integrated xxxxxxx systems" in any area of life tend to get >>> bloated and unwieldy and increasingly difficult to get one's arms >>> around; the documentation tends to get immense and unreadable and >>> increasingly difficult to learn; the interface necessarily becomes >>> increasingly complex and hard to learn; there tend to be increasing >>> unwanted or unexpected side effects between different parts and >>> functions of the system, leading to an increase in unpleasant >>> surprises >>> that can be increasingly difficult to track down. (Sound like some >>> of >>> the posts that appear on this newsgroup?) >>> >>> I guess I'm at base a modular type -- I can appreciate and handle, >>> just >>> barely, Mathematica at its present size. I don't believe that >>> viewing >>> Mathematica as "the world's only fully integrated technical computing >>> (and technical communication?) system" is a good, or desirable, or >>> for >>> that matter even achievable outcome, and the warning bells resulting >>> from pushing toward this goal -- if that's what it is -- are already >>> ringing loudly. >>> >> > > >
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?
- From: Curtis Osterhoudt <cfo@lanl.gov>
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?
- References:
- Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?
- From: Jens-Peer Kuska <kuska@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- Re: Adding markers on the surface of a Plot3D?