Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tellab5!wiseman
From: wiseman@tellabs.com (Jeff Wiseman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: Scientific Spreadsheet? WingZ is crap!
Message-ID: <4562@tellab5.tellabs.com>
Date: 15 Nov 90 18:51:24 GMT
References: <1990Nov15.100655.3353@csc.anu.oz.au> <1990Nov15.142402.9037@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Sender: news@Tellabs.COM
Organization: Tellabs, Inc. Lisle IL
Lines: 52

In article <1990Nov15.142402.9037@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mike@pyrite.SOM.CWRU.Edu (Michael Kerner) writes:
>Sorry, dude, but I like WingZ.  The way that I look at it, at least I could
>rewrite the entire program using the scripting functions.  I dunno.  I
>hate Excel and can't do enough with WingZ.  You're right that in some cases
>WingZ is a pain, but I think that it's a minority of the time.  For

I'm inclined to agree with Mike. Just think of all you actually get in only
version 1.1! I figure that if they can release an initial version that is as
orthogonal as this, that is significant. All that really appears to remain IMHO
is the trim and performance issues (plus maybe one or two SIGNIFICANT bugs like
not being able to lock a cells attributes leaving the data changable but hey!
Nobody's perfect :-)

Some of the "clumsyness" of Wingz seems to be because of its generic attributes
(eg. since an object is considered part of a chart, you scroll it by scrolling
the chart). In general, I have found that when you build a highly modular
and structured system, it tends to be slow initially until you get the chance
to add the performance enhancements.

I dunno. I have been involved in real-time software engineering for over 17
years now and I feel that I would rather have a product that exhibits the
generic, modular, and orthogonal attributes that Wingz appears to have and wait
for the enhancements than to get a product that has such a seemingly bizzare
structure with all kinds of side-effect type bugs in it as Excel does.

I know what happens when you try to "fix" or "improve" poorly structured
software. A lot can be told about the "guts" of an application by looking at
how it's interface behaves...even on a Mac which has a formalized type
interface.

Structure promotes more structure and ensuing solidness. A lack of structure
always encourages entropy. From what I have seen, Wingz exhibits a lot of
attributes that promote the notion that it has been built relatively well.
I have seen very little in Microsoft products to make me feel this way.

Don't get me wrong! I am NOT saying that MS products are bad or anything like
that (I'll let the "net-wars" determine that :-). I am saying that I do not
trust MS products (not to mention the fact that MS expected me to shell out
$100.00 for an upgrade that should have been an upDATE just so my spreadsheet
would use all the memory in my mac available to it and NOT ASSUME that it was
still running on a PC's architecture).

'course then there are marketing and support issues, but what can I say? I'm
an engineer! I want a sound product. Not necessarily one that everyone else
buys, or is faster, or has more third party support. I want a product that
regardless of how it behaves, it is predictable and stable, at least for my own
use.

But then again, even my friends think I'm weird at times :-)

--
Jeff Wiseman:	....uunet!tellab5!wiseman OR wiseman@TELLABS.COM