[sage-devel] Re: wolfram language

2014-03-03 Thread rjf
On Monday, March 3, 2014 10:24:57 AM UTC-8, kcrisman wrote: > > > > On Monday, March 3, 2014 10:48:47 AM UTC-5, rjf wrote: >> >> I think there is poor usability of a menu that pops up like this -- where >> the >> menu changes depending upon the selection. When the menu is standardized >> as in

[sage-devel] Re: wolfram language

2014-03-03 Thread kcrisman
On Monday, March 3, 2014 10:48:47 AM UTC-5, rjf wrote: > > I think there is poor usability of a menu that pops up like this -- where > the > menu changes depending upon the selection. When the menu is standardized > as in file-edit-view etc, and the sub-menus are always the same (but > with

[sage-devel] Re: wolfram language

2014-03-03 Thread rjf
I think there is poor usability of a menu that pops up like this -- where the menu changes depending upon the selection. When the menu is standardized as in file-edit-view etc, and the sub-menus are always the same (but with perhaps some options dimmed), the user can learn from past exposure

[sage-devel] Re: wolfram language

2014-03-03 Thread Jason Grout
On 3/2/14, 4:45, Harald Schilly wrote: Second, functionalities are not discoverable. In Sage there is more and more a trend to group top-level functions by a topic, e.g. someone types "graphs.[TAB]" and the tab key expands a list of functions only for graphs. Additionally, once you have construct

[sage-devel] Re: wolfram language

2014-03-02 Thread rjf
On Sunday, March 2, 2014 1:34:51 AM UTC-8, Volker Braun wrote: > > On Sunday, March 2, 2014 2:31:56 AM UTC+1, rjf wrote: >> >> The papers you can find from that search might change your mind. How >> hard is it to say >> sine of eks over cosine of eks equals tangent of x ? >> > > sin(x/cos(x

[sage-devel] Re: wolfram language

2014-03-02 Thread Volker Braun
On Sunday, March 2, 2014 2:31:56 AM UTC+1, rjf wrote: > > The papers you can find from that search might change your mind. How hard > is it to say > sine of eks over cosine of eks equals tangent of x ? > sin(x/cos(x)) = tan(x) ? Really useful speech input, as in being able to efficiently do

Re: [sage-devel] Re: wolfram language

2014-03-01 Thread Dr. David Kirkby
On 2 Mar 2014 01:31, "rjf" wrote: > But Mathematica 9 on Mac, Unix, Android, ... would not have MIP at all. To my knowledge there is no Mathematica 9 on Android. There's rumours of Mathematica being under development on Android, but I have not seen any official statement of this. > Hawking's v

[sage-devel] Re: wolfram language

2014-03-01 Thread rjf
On Saturday, March 1, 2014 12:20:59 AM UTC-8, Volker Braun wrote: > > On Saturday, March 1, 2014 5:54:49 AM UTC+1, rjf wrote: >> >> Can you read handwriting? Can you listen to audio input? >> > > Are you talking about input methods for Stephen Hawking or input methods > that a able-bodied pe

[sage-devel] Re: wolfram language

2014-03-01 Thread Volker Braun
On Saturday, March 1, 2014 5:54:49 AM UTC+1, rjf wrote: > > Can you read handwriting? Can you listen to audio input? > Are you talking about input methods for Stephen Hawking or input methods that a able-bodied person might want to learn about? Handwriting is about as fast as hunt-and-peck t

[sage-devel] Re: wolfram language

2014-02-28 Thread rjf
On Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:53:06 PM UTC-8, jason wrote: > > On 2/27/14 4:26 PM, rjf wrote: > > So how does it stack up as > > (a) user experience? > > (b) programming environment? > > For what it's worth, it took me a couple of hours to implement a live > camera widget: > > http://sag

[sage-devel] Re: wolfram language

2014-02-27 Thread Jason Grout
On 2/27/14 4:26 PM, rjf wrote: So how does it stack up as (a) user experience? (b) programming environment? For what it's worth, it took me a couple of hours to implement a live camera widget: http://sagecell.sagemath.org/?q=bttssr I believe the cloud has something like this too. (and yes,

[sage-devel] Re: wolfram language

2014-02-27 Thread Harald Schilly
On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 4:13:14 AM UTC+1, jason wrote: > > ...and I thought > the comments in the code shown at 10:28 were kind of funny. > Ha, indeed! I'm not a CS language expert, but for me it looks like what's shown is gluing a type system retrospectively to a blurred messy system -