Messages from Usenet group comp.lang.idl-pvwave, compiled by Paulo Penteado
OK, it's been 12 years since I last used IDL, so I'm really back to square one. I'm using it on an SGI unix machine, in command line mode. I see most of the tutorials on the web seem to imply that there is a complete environment also. How do I get that (or is it only for Windows) ? -- Guillaume Dargaud Colorado State University - Dept of Atmospheric Science http://rome.atmos.colostate.edu/ "I either want less corruption, or more chance to participate in it." - Ashleigh Brilliant.
Alex Schuster (alex@pet.mpin-koeln.mpg.de) writes: > The only problem with this is that the IDLDE just sucks. Even more than > the Windows version. I never used it. Sucks compared to what? PRINT statements!? I personally find the IDLDE improving with every version. I like it a lot, and I know for a fact that my working life is greatly enhanced by it. I wouldn't know how to live without it. :-) Cheers, David -- David Fanning, Ph.D. Fanning Software Consulting Phone: 970-221-0438 E-Mail: davidf@dfanning.com Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/ Toll-Free IDL Book Orders: 1-888-461-0155
Alex Schuster wrote: > > The only problem with this is that the IDLDE just sucks. Even more than > the Windows version. I never used it. Oh, never used it but it sucks? Very competent characterization. I guess I am not with you on this one. I use IDL DE every day and it works just fine for me. Pavel
"Pavel A. Romashkin" wrote: > Alex Schuster wrote: >> >> The only problem with this is that the IDLDE just sucks. Even more than >> the Windows version. I never used it. > > Oh, never used it but it sucks? Very competent characterization. I guess > I am not with you on this one. I use IDL DE every day and it works just > fine for me. :-) Okay-okay, looks like some people really like it. I had tried it, but was disappointed and continued using the command line version. I must admit that I first hadn't figured out that I could have multiple edit windows outside the development environment, that was the biggest drawback. Am I right that this is still the case in the Windows version? I also have all my code formatted with the tab being 4 characters, not 8 as usual, but the Unix IDLDE has no option for that, unlike the Windows version. And there were some other inconveniences, like way too huge and ugly dialogs cluttering my desktop, so I never migrated. There are some nice features like the variable watch, but yes, David, I'm just fine with print statements for debugging. Am I too old-fashioned here? Alex -- Alex Schuster Wonko@weird.cologne.de PGP Key available alex@pet.mpin-koeln.mpg.de
Alex Schuster (alex@pet.mpin-koeln.mpg.de) writes: > Okay-okay, looks like some people really like it. I had tried it, > but was disappointed and continued using the command line version. I > must admit that I first hadn't figured out that I could have multiple > edit windows outside the development environment, that was the biggest > drawback. Am I right that this is still the case in the Windows version? As far as I know there is no limit to the number of edit windows you can have open in the IDLDE. At least, I've never run up against a *practical* limit, and I've had lots and lots open at once. :-) > There are some nice features like the variable > watch, but yes, David, I'm just fine with print > statements for debugging. Am I too old-fashioned here? I'm getting better with the debugger (and of course it is wonderful and works great), but for the quick look I confess I still use Print statements, too. :-) Cheers, David -- David Fanning, Ph.D. Fanning Software Consulting Phone: 970-221-0438 E-Mail: davidf@dfanning.com Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/ Toll-Free IDL Book Orders: 1-888-461-0155
David Fanning wrote: > Alex Schuster (alex@pet.mpin-koeln.mpg.de) writes: > >> Okay-okay, looks like some people really like it. I had tried it, >> but was disappointed and continued using the command line version. I >> must admit that I first hadn't figured out that I could have multiple >> edit windows outside the development environment, that was the biggest >> drawback. Am I right that this is still the case in the Windows >> version? > > As far as I know there is no limit to the number of edit windows > you can have open in the IDLDE. At least, I've never run up > against a *practical* limit, and I've had lots and lots open > at once. :-) Thatï¿½s right, but I meant windows OUTSIDE the IDLDE. I just do not like to have a big window inside of which all my edit windows reside. Under Unix, I can place these windows outside the IDLSE if I want, anywhere on the screen. In Windows, I can at least place all info windows like the variable watch or the command line outside the main window, but not the edit windows. Iï¿½d prefer to have it the other way around. And, maybe, if I had noticed from the beginning that this limit wasnï¿½t in the Unix version, I might have used it more frequently. But maybe not, I miss features like saving all windows on exit, so I donï¿½t have to reload them after exiting IDL. You know, in these days before .RESET_SESSION, which my IDL doesnï¿½t know about yet. >> There are some nice features like the variable >> watch, but yes, David, I'm just fine with print >> statements for debugging. Am I too old-fashioned here? > > I'm getting better with the debugger (and of course > it is wonderful and works great), but for the quick > look I confess I still use Print statements, too. :-) And that without noticing the existence of .SKIP. Alex -- Alex Schuster Wonko@weird.cologne.de PGP Key available alex@pet.mpin-koeln.mpg.de
>>> The only problem with this is that the IDLDE just sucks. Even more than >>> the Windows version. I never used it. >> >> Oh, never used it but it sucks? Very competent characterization. I guess >> I am not with you on this one. I use IDL DE every day and it works just >> fine for me. I have tried the UNIX IDLDE (5.3 and 5.4 both, I believe) and quickly gave up... my problem is that I write very buggy code and so I have to hit Ctrl-C all too often. I ran into a problem because IDLDE seems to become completely unresponsive when running a program from the 'command line'. It doesn't halt when I ask it to, whether I use Ctrl-C or the "quit doing that right now" button (I forget the label on that button). In fact, if I cover it with another window and bring it to the top again, it doesn't even redraw itself until it's done thinking. I can see how that behavior might be nice if you really want it to focus on executing the code quickly, but it made IDLDE unusable for me. Doesn't this happen to the rest of you? If not, why not? Is it a UNIX problem? Anybody not have this problem when running IDLDE from UNIX? Thanks, Stuart p.s. I'm an aspiring lurker. Just found out about the newsgroup from David's book. One very, very fluffy cat... who I think is getting to be a little crazy because he's very staticky, and every time you pet him he gets a sharp electric shock. The blend of positive and negative feedback must be a bit confusing for him. ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- --- Stuart Norton --- --- stuart@ucolick.org --- --- Astronomy & Astrophysics - University of California --- --- Santa Cruz, CA 95064 --- --- (831) 459-4362 --- ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
Stuart Norton wrote: > I have tried the UNIX IDLDE (5.3 and 5.4 both, I believe) and quickly gave > up... my problem is that I write very buggy code and so I have to hit > Ctrl-C all too often. I ran into a problem because IDLDE seems to become > completely unresponsive when running a program from the 'command line'. It > doesn't halt when I ask it to, whether I use Ctrl-C or the "quit doing > that right now" button (I forget the label on that button). In fact, if I > cover it with another window and bring it to the top again, it doesn't > even redraw itself until it's done thinking. I can see how that behavior > might be nice if you really want it to focus on executing the code > quickly, but it made IDLDE unusable for me. > > Doesn't this happen to the rest of you? If not, why not? Is it a UNIX > problem? Anybody not have this problem when running IDLDE from UNIX? Uh, I think it's even worse in the Windows version. This weekend, I gave the it a try at home. The first thing I tried was a PRINT, 'HELLO'. It worked very well. Then I tried one of my bigger programs. IDL started to print many, many error messages, opened many edit windows, and continued doing so for about ten minutes. Without reacting to anything, except killing it via the tasklist. It turned out that I used a @CLU to execute a start script called CLU, but the Windows IDL ignored this file and just executed a clu.pro, which is a set of procedures, not a script file. I still prefer the Unix version and the command line (because they suck less). Alex -- Alex Schuster Wonko@weird.cologne.de PGP Key available alex@pet.mpin-koeln.mpg.de
Martin Schultz wrote: > > "Pavel A. Romashkin" wrote: >> >> Martin Schultz wrote: >> >>> I only reply here, because I could not see anyone mention the one and >>> only most wonderful idlwave mode for (X)Emacs distributed by Carsten >>> Dominik : http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~dominik/Tools/idlwave/ >> >> Make sure it works on my darn Mac, too! >> No luck for me here. Sorry. The IDLDE mode that "sucks" for others is my >> only option :-( >> >> Cheers, >> Pavel > > Hi Pavel, you forgot the ;-) after "Mac". It just must be a joke after > Craig's recent post. Anyway, the fact there is no emacs for the Mac > tells me there is something wrong with this system ;-) http://mac-emacs.sourceforge.net/ Also, with MacOSX coming, with its FreeBSD/Mach core, getting a fully up-to-date emacs running should be trivial. http://www.porkrind.org/emacs/ talks about one effort in that direction. So, if you're looking forward to OSX and would like to run IDLWAVE to its full potential (or are just tired of the IDLDE), you might want to start lobbying RSI now to be sure and include a MacOSX terminal version of IDL, in addition to the DE. It should be pretty trivial to perform that port. JD
JD Smith wrote: > http://mac-emacs.sourceforge.net/ Yeah, I know. I installed it, then threw it away. Mac OS is not multitasking (in truth, despite looking like it), so IDLwave does not work in Emacs on Mac OS. > Also, with MacOSX coming, with its FreeBSD/Mach core, getting a fully > up-to-date emacs running should be trivial. Geez. Have you ever seen the GUI on the OSX? It looks exactly as the name of the system *reads* - "o-o-sex". Very sexy. Even a little scary - I am not sure I like it when your toolbar swells up when you happen to move the mouse over it, and your image files snake out of their locations in the form of a steam swirl over a coffe cup, then pop open with a noise. I am *not* upgrading to OSX any time soon. So I will just take my pleasure in watching the rest of you guys enjoying the IDLwave mode :-) Cheers, Pavel
Unfortunately, I am positive on this one :-( Just check out the Apple web site. They seem to be very proud of these new "features". Pavel Martin Schultz wrote: > > "Pavel A. Romashkin" wrote: >> >> Geez. Have you ever seen the GUI on the OSX? It looks exactly as the >> name of the system *reads* - "o-o-sex". Very sexy. Even a little scary - >> I am not sure I like it when your toolbar swells up when you happen to >> move the mouse over it, and your image files snake out of their >> locations in the form of a steam swirl over a coffe cup, then pop open >> with a noise. I am *not* upgrading to OSX any time soon. So I will just >> take my pleasure in watching the rest of you guys enjoying the IDLwave >> mode :-) >> > Pavel, > > are you sure you are not describing the screen saver here ? > > Cheers, > > Martin
Max Woes Re: Back to idl after a looong time...
Pavel A. Romashkin (pavel.romashkin@noaa.gov) writes: > Make sure it works on my darn Mac, too! I was teaching an IDL course this week and I had the ... (well, "pleasure" is not the right word) of using an iMac as one of our machines. I was absolutely depressed at how sucky (I'm sure that is the right word) my device-independent color programs worked. It seems it is impossible on the Mac to flip between a color decomposition on and a decomposition off state. It seems like you have to decide if you are going to use color tables or not. If you decide you are, I don't know how you ever display a 24-bit image in the same IDL session. :-( I don't remember the Macs having these kinds of problems several years ago. Maybe the new X operating system will solve these problems. But as it is, I don't see how anyone gets useful work done with IDL on a Mac. Cheers, David P.S. Let's just say I'm re-writing all my example programs this week to add the disclaimer "Almost certainly won't work as expected on a Mac". :-( -- David Fanning, Ph.D. Fanning Software Consulting Phone: 970-221-0438 E-Mail: davidf@dfanning.com Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/ Toll-Free IDL Book Orders: 1-888-461-0155
Re: Max Woes Re: Back to idl after a looong time...
avid Fanning wrote: > > But as it is, I don't see how anyone gets useful > work done with IDL on a Mac. Hey, watch it! :-) Although, on the second thought, I never claimed my programs would be *useful*. They just *work*. Besides, if the code works on a Mac, it certainly does on any other platform (I tried), indicating that any other implementation of IDL is just plainly inferior to the Mac one :-) Cheers, Pavel
Pavel A. Romashkin (pavel.romashkin@noaa.gov) writes: > Besides, if the code works on a Mac, it > certainly does on any other platform. This I can well believe. But if we all have to start working to *this* lowest common denominator, we are going to see some simple-minded programs, indeed. :-( Cheers, David -- David Fanning, Ph.D. Fanning Software Consulting Phone: 970-221-0438 E-Mail: davidf@dfanning.com Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/ Toll-Free IDL Book Orders: 1-888-461-0155
In article <MPG.14f1eb2d68462af8989d56@news.frii.com>, davidf@dfanning.com (David Fanning) wrote: > Pavel A. Romashkin (pavel.romashkin@noaa.gov) writes: > >> Besides, if the code works on a Mac, it >> certainly does on any other platform. > > This I can well believe. But if we all have to > start working to *this* lowest common denominator, > we are going to see some simple-minded programs, > indeed. :-( Well, I gues some of the reasons all of our routines work under Mac OS 9.x as well as various other platforms is that we only use 8-bit color, and color tables. A holdover from the Bad Old Days when all we could get on workstations were 8-bit cards, but it does make saving the images as GIFs a lot more straightforward. Oh, wait, we can't do that anymore, can we? Joe Gurman