comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive - RDF feed
type: channel
description: Messages from Usenet group comp.lang.idl-pvwave, compiled by Paulo Penteado
items: IDL as programming language?
items: Re: IDL as programming language?

IDL as programming language?
type: item
description: OK. One the lecturers in our department recently went to Hawaii & America for a few weeks (lucky him) and came back with the idea of using IDL as a complete programming language rather than as just a plotter for FORTRAN generated data. Apparently this is being done overseas. Our department (mathematics) has been considering this possibility, but nmaking this step would be fairly costly for us, as we'd have to extend our license, so we want to be sure that we would be doing the right thing. We have a number of questions, concerning comparisons between IDL and other programming languages (particularly FORTRAN). We are currently running an older version of IDL (2.2.2) on a Sun SPARC station. (i) Accuracy. Our current version of IDL seems to prefer doing calculations in single precision, while we prefer double. Has this been improved in the latest version? (e.g. in our current version, routines like LUDCMP work in s.p., despite being passed d.p. arguments.) (ii) Speed. Some of us Grads are running some really time consuming programs (large arrays, large loops). How does IDL compare with (say) FORTRAN in general, speedwise? (my impression is that it's pretty slow, but I could be wrong...) (iii) Memory. How does IDL's memory management compare? Again, some of our programs (FORTRAN) have a tendency to gobblelarge chunks of memory (probably bad programming, but still...) (iv) What is a large IDL code like to debug? (v) How 'robust' is IDL as a programming language? We have a variety of different programming styles here -- some prefer 'quick and dirty' programming, others a more structured approach. Forgive my possible ignorance, but I have the impression that IDL as a language is more suited to the 'quick and dirty' approach. Is this true? Does IDL as a programming language have many glitches or inconveniences from a mathematical programmers point of view? Any info/advice would be much appreciated. The types of stuff we do here are generally large numerical (finite differen…
creator: abz
date: 1994-08-28T00:24:41-00:00

Re: IDL as programming language?
type: item
description: stl@sma.ch (Stephen Strebel) writes: > Granted, it has no GUI oriented interface for a debugger, but I think > its easier then debugging compiler/linker/memory and other problems that > you might encounter in C. Its A a higher level language then C and > fortran, so its pretty tough to compare them. I've been told that the latest version of IDL (3.6) does have a Motif debugger on Unix systems, but I haven't tried it myself yet. One is supposed to run idltool instead of idl. Has anyone tried it yet? Bill Thompson
creator: thompson
date: 1994-09-01T14:10:51-00:00

Re: IDL as programming language?
type: item
description: The comments that IDL is a quick and dirty language aren't totally fair. IDL is a very powerful language that is easy to use, but that doesn't mean that code written in IDL is necessarily dirty. It has the constructs that allow you to write clear well structured programs if you take the time. If you're not willing to invest the time in good software development practices then you will get confusing unmaintainable software, but that's true in Fortran or C also. I've seen plenty of examples of spaghetti code written in Fortran. However, I will say that there is one feature of IDL that is easily abused and tends to create dirty code. IDL is not a strongly typed language like PASCAL. Not only don't you have to define variables, IDL is perfectly happy to dynamically redefine variables in the middle of a program changing an array to a scalar. For example you could have a = fltarr(10,10) but later if you have a = 1 you won't get an error; a is redefined to be a scalar integer. So even if you define all your variables at the front of a program you're not guaranteed those definitions are valid. On the other hand this feature is one of the aspects of IDL that makes it so easy to use. In addition IDL is funny in how it creates variables on the fly. If you have a = fltarr(10) b = a that's ok. On the other had if you have c(0:4) = a(0:4) then you get an error that c is undefined -- ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------- Wally Gross phone : 301-286-6690 Code 971 Bldg. 22 Room 335 e-mail : wally@halfhalt.gsfc.nasa.gov Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD 20771
creator: wally
date: 1994-09-01T16:43:53-00:00

Re: IDL as programming language?
type: item
description: In article <34fhs7$ak8@nkosi.well.com>, Mike Boucher <scisoft@well.sf.ca.us> wrote: > > Another alternative is the IDL and PV-Wave interface to the optimized and > parallelized math library that our company sells. Dr. Thompson is > certainly correct that A=B*C is a faster matrix multiple than the > equivalent nested loops, but CALL GEMM(A,B,C) is about three times > faster than that even on a single-CPU box. On the multi-processors, > we're unbeatable. > > scisoft@well.sf.ca.us for more information, end of plug. I would be interested in seeing your timings. To date we haven't seen any of the "matrix languages", (i.e. IDL, MATLAB, Gauss, etc.) that do matrix multiplication faster than O-Matrix. Much appreciated, Beau Paisley Harmonic Software Inc. 12223 Dayton Avenue North Seattle WA 98133 206-367-8742 FAX: 206-367-1067 Internet e-mail: harmonic@world.std.com
creator: harmonic
date: 1994-09-07T23:55:34-00:00

Re: IDL as programming language?
type: item
description: Beau Paisley (harmonic@world.std.com) wrote: : In article <34fhs7$ak8@nkosi.well.com>, : Mike Boucher <scisoft@well.sf.ca.us> wrote: : > : >Another alternative is the IDL and PV-Wave interface to the optimized and : >parallelized math library that our company sells. Dr. Thompson is : >certainly correct that A=B*C is a faster matrix multiple than the : >equivalent nested loops, but CALL GEMM(A,B,C) is about three times : >faster than that even on a single-CPU box. On the multi-processors, : >we're unbeatable. : > : >scisoft@well.sf.ca.us for more information, end of plug. : I would be interested in seeing your timings. To date we haven't : seen any of the "matrix languages", (i.e. IDL, MATLAB, Gauss, etc.) that : do matrix multiplication faster than O-Matrix. What is O-Matrix? Is it similar to IDL and PV-Wave? - Mike
creator: scisoft
date: 1994-09-09T21:11:45-00:00

Re: IDL as programming language?
type: item
description: Beau Paisley (harmonic@world.std.com) wrote: : In article <34fhs7$ak8@nkosi.well.com>, : Mike Boucher <scisoft@well.sf.ca.us> wrote: : > : >Another alternative is the IDL and PV-Wave interface to the optimized and : >parallelized math library that our company sells. : I would be interested in seeing your timings. To date we haven't : seen any of the "matrix languages", (i.e. IDL, MATLAB, Gauss, etc.) that : do matrix multiplication faster than O-Matrix. Our product is primarily a FORTRAN- or C-callable library of math subroutines, so I cannot claim to have the same flexibility of the matrix languages such as IDL or O-Matrix. As for speed, we tend to run BLAS2 in the 15-25 mflop range and BLAS3 in the 25-35 mflop range on a single CPU, up to 150+ mflops for some of the more important subroutines like matrix multiply on a four-CPU system.
creator: scisoft
date: 1994-09-10T03:42:28-00:00

Re: IDL as programming language?
type: item
description: > : I would be interested in seeing your timings. To date we haven't > : seen any of the "matrix languages", (i.e. IDL, MATLAB, Gauss, etc.) that > : do matrix multiplication faster than O-Matrix. > > What is O-Matrix? Is it similar to IDL and PV-Wave? > > - Mike O-Matrix is a reasonably priced,($95) object-oriented analysis and visualization tool for the PC that uses a simple interpreted language that operates on matrices instead of individual numbers. Features: - Diverse set of built-in functions including: Algebraic and trigonometric functions, interpolation, FFTs, inverse FFTs and 2D FFTs, QR factorization, Bessel functions, singular value decomposition, sorting, random number generation - Comprehensive graphics including: x-y plots with multiple viewports, contour plots, mesh plots, polar plotting, histograms, bar plots, stair plots, error plots, mouse manipulation of plotted data, and publication quality output - Extensive library of functions including: wavelets ,spectral analysis, Kalman filter, normal distributions, circuit simulator, circuit optimizer, signal processing, splines, optimization, two-dimensional integration, convolution, auto-regressive correlation, special functions, Cholesky factorization, spectral estimation, differential equation solvers, F-test, t-test, means, medians, eigenvalue solver, matrix exponentiation, discrete prolate spheroidal sequences, GPS tracking functions ... - Built in debugger with extensive error messages - Extensive on-line help, and free technical support by phone, fax, and e-mail - 32-bit implementation allows matrices and programs up to 32 MB. - An optimized environment for execution throughtput faster than other "matrix" languages. - User-definable functions with variable numbers of arguments and recursion - Six matrix types including character, integer, real, double-precision, logical, and complex double-precision If you have further questions, please contact us at: Harmonic Software (206) 367-8742 fax (206) 367-…
creator: harmonic
date: 1994-09-15T21:24:48-00:00