Re: Re: Mathematica 7.0.1.0 and some General Comments
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg97212] Re: [mg97189] Re: Mathematica 7.0.1.0 and some General Comments
- From: peter <plindsay.0 at gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 05:51:32 -0500 (EST)
- References: <goqphr$lt2$1@smc.vnet.net> <200903070741.CAA17090@smc.vnet.net>
I don't Mathematica could, or should, become the de facto standard for mathematics communication. Its a bit like insisting that all written documents from now on must be done in MS Word. However I do think that the Mathematica Player is an excellent tool and is actually quite a generous gift from Wolfram Research to the mathematical community.Peter 2009/3/7 ADL <alberto.dilullo at tiscali.it> > With respect to some of your points, I really believe that the worst > thing WRI developers could do against Mathematica itself was (and is) > to hide the bug list and the list of fixes. > This overall gives the feeling of a substantially unreliable system. > > Generally speaking, I am fond of the basic Mathematica structure, I > use it every day to solve practical issues in my job and also develop > some rather complex programs, but admittedly would never fully rely on > a piece of software in which new bugs are introduced all the time, > also in appearently consolidated areas, and for which fixes are never > documented and established once for all. > > On the contrary, WRI has undertaken the introduction of thousands new > features, many of which do not appear to work exactly as expected, are > ofted superficially documented, are difficult to print and study in > detail and are sometines stubbornly affected by some "suboptimal" > design, which makes their application counterintuitive or error prone. > Most Mathematica books are full of astonishing one-liners (perhaps > 1000 characters long), while a lot of people are still stuck with > FindRoot, Eigenvectors, FourierTransform, etc etc. To make a simple > plot, it is often better (sometimes recommended) to quit Mathematica > and use a general-purpose spreadsheet. > > It is surely a strategy, it might support some cash flow, but I do not > believe it is a winning strategy. > > About one / two years ago, WRI proudly declared that they had reached > the millionth build of Mathematica. Now, there are surely many more. > Why they did not realize that this very bad advertisement for a sw > with 6 official versions (at that time) and strong indication of a > very bad design? This is an explicit declaration that Mathematica is > not amenable to incremental development, that is the only way towards > reliability. > > I do not understand why and I am sad about it, but after reading this > Group for about one year and having used Mathematica since version 3, > to me WRI appears to be strongly determined NOT to become a winner in > this arena. > > ADL > > > On 6 Mar, 10:14, "David Park" <djmp... at comcast.net> wrote: > ... > > > > David Park > > > > djmp... at comcast.net > > > > <http://home.comcast.net/~djmpark>http://home.comcast.net/~djmpark/ > > > -- Peter Lindsay
- References:
- Re: Mathematica 7.0.1.0 and some General Comments
- From: ADL <alberto.dilullo@tiscali.it>
- Re: Mathematica 7.0.1.0 and some General Comments