Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Software » comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica

Topic: Stephen Wolfram's recent blog
Replies: 19   Last Post: Feb 19, 2013 1:09 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
JUN

Posts: 67
Registered: 8/15/07
Re: Stephen Wolfram's recent blog
Posted: Feb 17, 2013 4:09 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Friday, February 15, 2013 10:08:24 PM UTC-8, djmpark wrote:
> Still it would be nice to know: What is the purpose of releasing a "Core"
>
> Mathematica language; who is going to use it and what are they going to use
>
> it for?
>
>
>
> My worry is that this is another project dug up from the "to do" list that
>
> will divert WRI from what, to me at least, seem like much more urgent tasks.
>
> I thought "a system for doing mathematics by computer" was a nice slogan,
>
> and I thought Theodore Gray's design of the notebook Front End was the right
>
> thing. All this led to the impression, which I'm sure WRI meant to give,
>
> that Mathematica was a medium for writing active, literate technical
>
> documents. (Rather than being just a graphical calculator or a programming
>
> input sheet where results are copied out and used elsewhere.)
>
>
>
> However, to say that one can write literate technical documents with
>
> Mathematica is one thing, actually doing it is another. There are design
>
> aspects of Mathematica that are so awful and difficult that they turn
>
> Mathematica into a something of a kludge. I would guess that only a very
>
> small percentage of users use Mathematica as both a writing and calculating
>
> system - a shame because most people will do better work if they write about
>
> what they are trying to do, so they could refer to the work sometime later
>
> when they may have forgotten some of the ideas and objectives, or
>
> communicate it to someone else to obtain help.
>
>
>
> The user interface to Mathematica, in the sense of the types of commands
>
> available to the user, could be greatly improved. To say that in Mathematica
>
> "everything is an expression" is a bit like Andrzej's "Anything that is
>
> spoken by people in England is English by definition." (What about the guy
>
> who spoke English to his wife, French to his mistress, and German to his
>
> horse?) It would mean something if "Expressions" were composed of intuitive
>
> sematic units that could be combined in natural ways. Or if this carried
>
> through to lower semantic units. This is quite often not the case.
>
>
>
> For example in graphics it would be nice if "everything was a graphics
>
> primitive" and one just drew one thing after another. So axes, frames, and
>
> various labels might be something you drew instead of using Options. But,
>
> instead, graphics consists of a large collection of special-purpose plot
>
> types that are confusing and illogical in methods to combine or modify them.
>
> Generally a large set of Options is used to modify them or add elements.
>
>
>
> Or take the matter of specifying custom tables. Tables are specified by a
>
> Grid for the content and everything else is specified through Options.
>
> (Options have their uses but Mathematica is getting to be more and more
>
> programming by Options. And Option names are getting to be more and more
>
> Strings. And it's not always easy to get a list of them or what to do. So
>
> maybe the new language could be called Options?) And the Grid Options seemed
>
> to be tuned to producing striped or plaid tables. Most custom tables won't
>
> look like that. Never mind, WRI sort of provided a way and it's up to you to
>
> figure it out. I wonder how many users design nice custom tables as part of
>
> their documents? I provided a TableMaker facility in Presentations that
>
> let's one make a table more like one would draw a graphic. But there is a
>
> Grid bug such that one can't adjust the size of a row if the row contains
>
> any spanned elements. That was there in Mathematica 6 and they were aware
>
> of it, and the bug still there in Mathematica 9.
>
>
>
> Or take the matter of writing extended Applications, which more people
>
> should do. Documentation depends on Workbench and Workbench has never been a
>
> finished program. There are lots of little inside tricks you have to know,
>
> and warnings you should ignore. You can't do things like write a Tutorial in
>
> your own style sheet and have linking done. There is no facility for
>
> developers to include a template menu. It's not exactly intuitive at all.
>
>
>
> All the doo-dads are to me a nuisance. The one thing I liked was the Ctrl+K
>
> (which I could type faster than you can say Jack Rabbit) command completion.
>
> But now Ctrl+K is gone and what replaces it is ill-conceived and horrible.
>
>
>
> So, please get back to the original concept, polish it and complete it,
>
> Stephen.
>


Thanks for the clear words which I think are spot-on. Some may (or will?) call it a rant, and will get defensive about the existing idiosyncrasies, but I think you point to a list of concrete improvements that should be taken very seriously.




Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.