<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">This is already hijacking the initial
thread. I won't go on here after this message.<br>
<br>
Le 06/12/2019 à 11:17, Antoine Monmayrant a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:37b63e4f-c8b3-c788-5f1c-4b900efdc30f@laas.fr">
<br>
Le 06/12/2019 à 08:41, Stéphane Mottelet a écrit :
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Please think about the future of Scilab,
not always its past. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>For my part, i think about future, taking into account the
present.<br>
And the past is also interesting to learn from past successes, and
failures.</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:37b63e4f-c8b3-c788-5f1c-4b900efdc30f@laas.fr">
<br>
<br>
I do agree with you.
<br>
I mentioned in the past that the default colormap was so ugly it
should be considered a bug (
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bugzilla.scilab.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11054">http://bugzilla.scilab.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11054</a> ).
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>The problem was and is not that the default colormap is ugly, but
that it holds for the whole figure, instead of per axes.</p>
<blockquote type="cite">I proposed changing the default colormap to
something sensible and also proposed adding decent replacement to
the abomination that is jetcolormap.
<br>
<p></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>jetcolormap() is jetcolormap(), and is used as a jetcolormap
swatch in many other softwares, noticeably thermal imaging ones.<br>
It is one very standard colormap among other ones. I don't see the
point about any abomination.<br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:37b63e4f-c8b3-c788-5f1c-4b900efdc30f@laas.fr">The answer
was: "but we can't: backward compatibility".
<br>
<br>
I think scilab is one of the only plotting soft that is still
using horrible defaults (matlab, python.matplotib, ... all have
evolved and changed to reasonable defaults).
<br>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
This is why i am wondering why my <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://mailinglists.scilab.org/Scilab-users-A-new-smarter-default-grid-style-for-Scilab-6-1-0-SEP-tt4037595.html">open
post about changing the default grid style in axes</a> has
received strictly no answer, noticably from futurologists. Is it
OK with the current defaults? Not for me.<br>
Was it OK with the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://help.scilab.org/docs/6.0.1/en_US/bode.html">default
ticks and grid style of bode() up to 6.0.1</a>? Not for me. This
is why changing them <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://codereview.scilab.org/#/c/20634/">was proposed</a>
and <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://help.scilab.org/docs/6.0.2/en_US/bode.html">accepted
in 6.0.2</a>.<br>
Etc, etc etc.</p>
<p>There were actually extremely conservative positions or
actions/inactions about some cases -- i am wondering for instance
about the disp() inversion --, hardly believable, because almost
or definitely without rationale. And we can hope that, for this
case, it will be corrected soon.<br>
<br>
But these extreme cases -- that are even hard to consider as naive
-- do no allow any extreme positions in the opposite, whose main
processing could aim to avoid providing rationale as well, in the
pretendly opposite direction but for the same reason: it's
shorter, and at first sight, it looks easier.</p>
<p>Regards<br>
Samuel</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>