Messages from Usenet group comp.lang.idl-pvwave, compiled by Paulo Penteado
Ok, you Linux guys, I have to break down and install Linux so I can sort out some X Windows problems with my IDL widgets. Which flavor is the easiest to install for the, uh, less technically astute members of our esteemed organization? :-) Cheers, David P.S. I'll probably put it on an old DELL laptop I have around here and have been using as a doorstop. -- David Fanning, Ph.D. Fanning Software Consulting, Inc. Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/
Indeed there is often some additional work required for getting colors to work on some older Solaris workstations. In my experience, RSI ships the 'X' device with rather conservative settings and you have to specify your own settings in idl.startup. However, I've never had this particular problem with Linux so far. If it is simply a color device problem then I think that the best solution would be to simply make a "color wizard" for *NIX workstations. This could be something that might assist a first-time user of IDL in setting up their idl.startup (if it needs to be changed at all). The same tool might prove a much more reliable debugging method, particularily if it has lots of online help. I know that such a tool might have saved a few hours work when I first started to dabble with IDL on Solaris in 2003. Then again, such a tool might perpetuate the ignorance that seems to haunt some members of the before mentioned esteemed organization. And such a tool is not likey to reach it's intended audience if it does not ship with IDL. Robbie -- nrb@ Robbie Barnett imag Research Assistant wsahs Nuclear Medicine & Ultrasound nsw Westmead Hospital gov Sydney Australia au +61 2 9845 7223
Paul Van Delst writes: > Maybe it's because writing code/getting results is *too* easy nowadays? (Thanks, IDL. > Sheesh. :o) And maybe the ease of writing code that produces copious amounts of data > contributes to the generation of errors too subtle to stand out? You may be on to something here. I usually start a class by asking what people want to learn to do, and why they've chosen IDL to do it. Inevitably, they want to do the most god-awful complicated things. I always start to sweat because I know how (some of the time) to do about half of it. Then we get started, and three hours later when I find myself saying, "No, *DEVICE* decomposed. D-E-V-I-C-E. You are typing DEVIOUS," that I realize I'll be fine, that we aren't going very far that day or any other. It's only later that night, after the third or forth margarita that I get very, very depressed. Cheers, David -- David Fanning, Ph.D. Fanning Software Consulting, Inc. Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/
David Fanning wrote: > ... It's only later that > night, after the third or forth margarita that > I get very, very depressed. There was a marvellous anti-alcohol (well anti-alcohol-abuse) ad in NZ a few years ago. A guy is holding forth at a pub (US translation bar) to a friend about his problems: unsuccessful at work, wife hates him, disqualified from driving. He goes on about this while knocking back several glasses of beer. "If it was just one problem I could deal with it, but I have so many problems all at once." Meanwhile his friend tries several times to interrupt him, obviously meaning to suggest he shouldn't drink so much, but gives up. Ad ends in depressed silence. For some reason your post reminded me of that ad, David. I have no idea why :-) -- Mark Hadfield "Ka puwaha te tai nei, Hoea tatou" m.hadfield@niwa.co.nz National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA)
Mark Hadfield writes: > For some reason your post reminded me of that ad, David. I have no idea > why :-) Yep. I don't have any idea, either. :-) Cheers, David P.S. I don't *think* my wife hates me, but she did tell me she thought I was better off in Munich if I kept insisted on practicing my German. :-) -- David Fanning, Ph.D. Fanning Software Consulting, Inc. Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/
Marshall Perrin writes: > I'll go crawl back in my hole with the other end-users for a while > now and be quiet again. :-) No, no. I agree with you *completely*. It is nonsense in this day and age for IDL to work so poorly out of the box. And it is ruinous for people who want to promote and sell IDL. Part of my frustration with iTools is that I see such a lot of effort on stuff that's not needed, and so little attention paid to the simple things that could make a world of difference to the people who are actually trying to use IDL. But why are you responding to me! There should be a ground swell of letters directed to RSI. Why are so many people willing to settle for this? Cheers, David -- David Fanning, Ph.D. Fanning Software Consulting, Inc. Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/
> I feel that someone needs to stand up here and offer a valiant defense > of the astrophysics community, but I fear it's too late and we've > all already been irrevocably branded as hopeless luddites. :-) > but I hope you don't fault me for wanting to get the most > science done in IDL as possible with the minimum amount of screwing > around with configuration parameters or learning language esoterica! > (Same reason why I, and nearly every other astronomer I know, have > switched to Macs as much as possible: minimal need to screw around for > hours just to get things working!) I work in the space sciences community, so I know exactly what you're talking about. A number of my scientists use Macs for the reason you mention. It seems the younger scientists (ones young enough to have grown up with computers around) are much easier to teach and much more accepting of instruction. They actually want to know a little of how to do their own IDL magic. Many of our young scientists use IDL and know some things better than I do, not that I have any great expansive IDL knowledge. The older scientists (ones who were already through a lot before the personal computer became the norm) fall in the "hopeless luddites" category. It'd take a miracle for them to upgrade from FORTRAN 77 to FORTRAN 90. At least since they're so senior they don't bug me too much -- they have their postdocs bug me. :-) -Mike
> No, no. I agree with you *completely*. It is nonsense > in this day and age for IDL to work so poorly out of > the box. And it is ruinous for people who want to promote > and sell IDL. Part of my frustration with iTools is that > I see such a lot of effort on stuff that's not needed, > and so little attention paid to the simple things that > could make a world of difference to the people who are > actually trying to use IDL. Regarding iTools, the first time iTools was included, I wanted to try things out. I bring up an iTool and click and BOOM! There went my IDL session and I think it even tool my shell along with it. There also went any interest I had in iTools. After a little research, I figured out the problem, but iTools are nothing more than a whiz-bang feature that has no practical application (for me). > But why are you responding to me! There should be > a ground swell of letters directed to RSI. Why are > so many people willing to settle for this? To whom within RSI do we send our ground swell of letters? Do you think RSI would listen, if we as the IDL newsgroup, came up with a list of the top things we'd most like to see implemented? Instead of each one of us requesting all sorts of different little things, find the things that we have in common and all of us get behind that effort to get it in? Grass roots, baby!! ;-) -Mike
Michael Wallace writes: > To whom within RSI do we send our ground swell of letters? Do you think > RSI would listen, if we as the IDL newsgroup, came up with a list of the > top things we'd most like to see implemented? Instead of each one of us > requesting all sorts of different little things, find the things that we > have in common and all of us get behind that effort to get it in? Grass > roots, baby!! ;-) I think we tried that once, to indifferent success. :-) But, yes, they listen. Why do you think we still have a Mac version of IDL? Cheers, David -- David Fanning, Ph.D. Fanning Software Consulting, Inc. Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/
Hay, nice thread this night! Interesting to see how moving such a simple question is! David, this thread could become a new Tutorial. To add a bit from me: after years of workstation usage (VMS/Unix/HP), years of PC (mostly Windows, linux (Suse)) I now decided to go over to Mac OS X, enchanted by the seemingly simplicity and the obvious lack of distorted thinking and reasoning mostly caused by usage of Windows. Even if that might be unrealistic: I think switching on the virgin Mac, installing IDL, running the routines necessary is far better than spending years with troubles and losses caused by Windows/linux problems. And than, after some days/weeks/months of satisfying work I will even decide to use X windows with the (X)emacs (?) running with idlwave ... Please don't spoil my phantasy! I hope really to overcome this unbelievable corruption of thinking caused by the usage of MS software! Regards Karsten On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:54:48 -0700, David Fanning <davidf@dfanning.com> wrote: > Ok, you Linux guys, > > I have to break down and install Linux so I can sort out some > X Windows problems with my IDL widgets. Which flavor is the easiest > to install for the, uh, less technically astute members of > our esteemed organization? :-) > > Cheers, > > David > > P.S. I'll probably put it on an old DELL laptop I have > around here and have been using as a doorstop. > -- Karsten Rodenacker ------------------------------------------------------------ -------- :-) GSF - Forschungszentrum Institute of Biomathematics and Biometry D-85758 Oberschleissheim Postfach 11 29 Karsten.Rodenacker@gsf.de | http://ibb.gsf.de/ http://ibb.gsf.de/homepage/karsten.rodenacker/ Tel: +49 89 31873401 | FAX: ..3369
>> To whom within RSI do we send our ground swell of letters? Do you think >> RSI would listen, if we as the IDL newsgroup, came up with a list of the >> top things we'd most like to see implemented? Instead of each one of us >> requesting all sorts of different little things, find the things that we >> have in common and all of us get behind that effort to get it in? Grass >> roots, baby!! ;-) > > > I think we tried that once, to indifferent success. :-) Yeah, okay. Well, it was worth a shot. But what about my first question: Who to we send our various requests for features? I prefer to talk to an actual person rather than just send an email off to a general address and then wonder if anyone actually looked at it. -Mike
Marshall Perrin wrote: > David Fanning <davidf@dfanning.com> wrote: > >> I am always amazed with what people put up with, >> but this was really an eye-opening experience. >> I recommend *anyone* who writes software for a >> living go spend a couple of months with the end-users. >> You will never be the same. :-) > > > I feel that someone needs to stand up here and offer a valiant defense > of the astrophysics community, but I fear it's too late and we've > all already been irrevocably branded as hopeless luddites. :-) Thanks Marshall! > > I think part of the problem is that IDL ships with poor default settings > in many cases. It can be configured to do the right thing, if you know > how to tweak your .idlstartup file to add some DECOMPOSED and RETAIN > keywords, etc, but you shouldn't have to do that to get reasonable > functionality! I think many astronomers come to IDL with previous experience > with things like Matlab or Mathematica, where you *don't* need to do > that sort of tweaking. Window repaints work correctly in Mathematica > right away! So when faced with IDL windows that get permanently damaged > as soon as something passes in front of them, why isn't it reasonable to > assume that's "just how IDL is"? Just to *reiterate* it: let's say you've just started you're PhD thesis, you sit in front of you're shiny new linux box, and just spend a couple of days and nights learning IDL. You don't feel like a newbye anymore, and you think you're ready for your first big project: a nice colored movie of your favorite supernova exploding. You have made a nice plan in your head on how the animation will look like and you think you might be optioned for the next academy award. Proud, you start coding and displaying your frames... just to find out your animation looks like it was done in the thirties: desperately black and white. You think: IDL cannot be so backwards, can't it? Suddenly you also find out that when you put your mouse cursor over the plot windows, colors magically show up, making your plot so nice and screwing everything else up, but who cares if you're nice background image of M81 by Hubble now looks like an old X-ray false color image... So you gear your hope up, but still find the limitation of having to keep your mouse on the windows a little harsh. Brilliant idea: check up the documentation. You type "? colour" at the command line and a fine message windows tells you: the topic "COLOUR" does not exist. Fine, you remember RSI HQ being based in colorado and not in colourado, so you try again "? colour", but that doesn't work either. So what? Slowly finding you're way through the 10000+ pages of documentation, you discover on page 3856 of the appendices the section that you should have read first: "The X Windows Device". You read the chapter carefully twice, and you summ up your findings: out there exist direct color, true color, pseudo color, static color, gray scale, static gray. The last 2 don't interest you, since you have already managed B&W, sort of. So which one should you pick? You learn they come in different flavours, 8 bit, 16 bit, 24 bit. Also there is a mention of colormaps: they come as shared, private, static (but you find no mention of dynamics ones, pity, as an astrophysicists you have been trained to think that hydrodynamics is superior to hydrostatics). So, now, which one will work for you? Of course the guide does not help you in *that* matter, so you choose to apply the "scientific method": try out all the possible combination until you find the one that suits you (but still you're not really sure why that particular combination works and the others failed...). I am sure that the above picture is not too far from the actual experience of at least some people, and maybe even a few "computer-wise" ones. Ciao, Paolo > > That's not to say I disagree completely with the tone of this thread. > There *are* a lot of people who don't understand computing nearly as > well as perhaps they should; I'd love to see more computer emphasis > added to the undergraduate physics curriculum, but the invariable > faculty response is "but there's already too much material; what > courses should we drop if we add a computer requirement or two?" > Still, I think it needs to happen sooner or later. But I see a > distinction between fundamental issues of numerical data analysis > (e.g. representation of floating-point numbers, error propagation, > algorithms, and so on) versus details specific to some individual > piece of software (setting RETAIN=2 or knowing how to convert between > DATA and NORMALIZED coordinates, or whatever). One should strive to > minimize how much of the latter one needs to know, so that you can > concentrate on the former! In my opinion, something like imdisp or > tvimage should become *standard* with IDL: too many people out there > end up learning "tv" first and then getting stuck rolling their own > more useful display codes from scratch, and that's a waste... > > On a regular basis, I program in IDL, C/C++, Perl, Tcl/Tk, various > shells, and Motorola DSP assembler (and occasionally I end up in > Python or Fortran too). That menagerie of languages is my problem, not > yours, but I hope you don't fault me for wanting to get the most > science done in IDL as possible with the minimum amount of screwing > around with configuration parameters or learning language esoterica! > (Same reason why I, and nearly every other astronomer I know, have > switched to Macs as much as possible: minimal need to screw around for > hours just to get things working!) > > I'll go crawl back in my hole with the other end-users for a while > now and be quiet again. :-) > > > - Marshall >
Paolo Grigis wrote: > > Marshall Perrin wrote: > >> David Fanning <davidf@dfanning.com> wrote: >> >>> I am always amazed with what people put up with, >>> but this was really an eye-opening experience. >>> I recommend *anyone* who writes software for a living go spend a >>> couple of months with the end-users. >>> You will never be the same. :-) >> >> >> >> I feel that someone needs to stand up here and offer a valiant defense >> of the astrophysics community, but I fear it's too late and we've >> all already been irrevocably branded as hopeless luddites. :-) > > > Thanks Marshall! > >> >> I think part of the problem is that IDL ships with poor default settings >> in many cases. It can be configured to do the right thing, if you know >> how to tweak your .idlstartup file to add some DECOMPOSED and RETAIN >> keywords, etc, but you shouldn't have to do that to get reasonable >> functionality! I think many astronomers come to IDL with previous >> experience >> with things like Matlab or Mathematica, where you *don't* need to do >> that sort of tweaking. Window repaints work correctly in Mathematica >> right away! So when faced with IDL windows that get permanently >> damaged as soon as something passes in front of them, why isn't it >> reasonable to assume that's "just how IDL is"? > > > Just to *reiterate* it: let's say you've just started you're PhD thesis, > you sit in front of you're shiny new linux box, and just spend a couple > of days and nights learning IDL. You don't feel like a newbye anymore, > and you think you're ready for your first big project: > a nice colored movie of your favorite supernova exploding. > You have made a nice plan in your head on how the animation will > look like and you think you might be optioned for the next academy > award. > > Proud, you start coding and displaying your frames... just to find out > your animation looks like it was done in the thirties: desperately black > and white. You think: IDL cannot be so backwards, can't it? Suddenly you > also find out that when you put your mouse cursor over the plot windows, > colors magically show up, making your plot so nice and screwing > everything else up, but who cares if you're nice background image of M81 > by Hubble now looks like an old X-ray false color image... > So you gear your hope up, but still find the limitation of having to > keep your mouse on the windows a little harsh. Brilliant idea: check > up the documentation. You type "? colour" at the command line and > a fine message windows tells you: the topic "COLOUR" does not exist. > Fine, you remember RSI HQ being based in colorado and not in colourado, > so you try again "? colour", but that doesn't work either. So what? Of course, the second time that was meant to read: "? color" > > Slowly finding you're way through the 10000+ pages of documentation, > you discover on page 3856 of the appendices the section that you should > have read first: "The X Windows Device". You read the chapter carefully > twice, and you summ up your findings: out there exist direct color, true > color, pseudo color, static color, gray scale, static gray. The last 2 > don't interest you, since you have already managed B&W, sort of. > So which one should you pick? You learn they come in different flavours, > 8 bit, 16 bit, 24 bit. Also there is a mention of colormaps: they come > as shared, private, static (but you find no mention of dynamics ones, > pity, as an astrophysicists you have been trained to think that > hydrodynamics is superior to hydrostatics). So, now, which one will > work for you? Of course the guide does not help you in *that* matter, > so you choose to apply the "scientific method": try out all the > possible combination until you find the one that suits you > (but still you're not really sure why that particular > combination works and the others failed...). > > I am sure that the above picture is not too far from the actual > experience of at least some people, and maybe even a few > "computer-wise" ones. > > Ciao, > Paolo > >> >> That's not to say I disagree completely with the tone of this thread. >> There *are* a lot of people who don't understand computing nearly as >> well as perhaps they should; I'd love to see more computer emphasis >> added to the undergraduate physics curriculum, but the invariable >> faculty response is "but there's already too much material; what >> courses should we drop if we add a computer requirement or two?" >> Still, I think it needs to happen sooner or later. But I see a >> distinction between fundamental issues of numerical data analysis >> (e.g. representation of floating-point numbers, error propagation, >> algorithms, and so on) versus details specific to some individual >> piece of software (setting RETAIN=2 or knowing how to convert between >> DATA and NORMALIZED coordinates, or whatever). One should strive to >> minimize how much of the latter one needs to know, so that you can >> concentrate on the former! In my opinion, something like imdisp or >> tvimage should become *standard* with IDL: too many people out there >> end up learning "tv" first and then getting stuck rolling their own >> more useful display codes from scratch, and that's a waste... >> >> On a regular basis, I program in IDL, C/C++, Perl, Tcl/Tk, various >> shells, and Motorola DSP assembler (and occasionally I end up in >> Python or Fortran too). That menagerie of languages is my problem, not >> yours, but I hope you don't fault me for wanting to get the most >> science done in IDL as possible with the minimum amount of screwing >> around with configuration parameters or learning language esoterica! >> (Same reason why I, and nearly every other astronomer I know, have >> switched to Macs as much as possible: minimal need to screw around for >> hours just to get things working!) >> >> I'll go crawl back in my hole with the other end-users for a while >> now and be quiet again. :-) >> >> >> - Marshall >>
Paolo Grigis writes: > Slowly finding you're way through the 10000+ pages of documentation, > you discover on page 3856 of the appendices the section that you should > have read first: "The X Windows Device". You read the chapter carefully > twice, and you summ up your findings: out there exist direct color, true > color, pseudo color, static color, gray scale, static gray. The last 2 > don't interest you, since you have already managed B&W, sort of. > So which one should you pick? You learn they come in different flavours, > 8 bit, 16 bit, 24 bit. Also there is a mention of colormaps: they come > as shared, private, static (but you find no mention of dynamics ones, > pity, as an astrophysicists you have been trained to think that > hydrodynamics is superior to hydrostatics). So, now, which one will > work for you? Of course the guide does not help you in *that* matter, > so you choose to apply the "scientific method": try out all the > possible combination until you find the one that suits you > (but still you're not really sure why that particular > combination works and the others failed...). Here's the problem in a nutshell. But talk about embellishing an anecdote! Cheers, David P.S. Let's just say an article like this in the morning gets the day started right! :-) -- David Fanning, Ph.D. Fanning Software Consulting, Inc. Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/
In article <1118jkesbdch614@corp.supernews.com>, Michael Wallace <mwallace.no.spam@no.spam.swri.edu.invalid> wrote: > Yeah, okay. Well, it was worth a shot. But what about my first > question: Who to we send our various requests for features? I prefer > to talk to an actual person rather than just send an email off to a > general address and then wonder if anyone actually looked at it. > > -Mike If you send an e-mail to support@rsinc.com, it goes into the their problem logging system and you will get a response. Two actually, an automatic response and then later a response from a human. I find the RSI attitude of adding major new components to the language but not straightening out serious issues with older components to be, ah..., disappointing. My biggest complaint? The lack of real 24-bit color support in the PS device driver. It makes coding for both the screen and for printing a major headache (and nearly impossible to explain to newcomers). Ken Bowman
"Paul Van Delst" <paul.vandelst@noaa.gov> wrote in message news:cv0kuo$2cj$1@news.nems.noaa.gov... > David Fanning wrote: ... >> It's not really a matter of intelligence. Most of the >> people in an IDL class have advanced degrees in physical >> sciences. It is something else, and I can't really put my >> finger on it. (I used to think it was because they were forced >> to use LINUX computers, but now I know better.) They >> don't understand programming at all. They don't really >> know what a variable is, they don't know how to type >> a program, they don't understand how windows work on >> their computers. Really basic stuff I would have thought >> you learned as a physical science undergraduate. But >> if so, they have forgotten a lot of it. > > Ah, I know what you mean. When I first came ot the US ('93) I was amazed > at the number of graduate students (in science fields) that didn't know > how computers worked and had never programmed at all. How can that be?!? > Bizarre. Didn't everybody learn about registers, CPUs, ALUs, Math > Coprocessors, etc. in their Experimental Methods classes? I can't tell you how happy this makes me. I read this and I think "job security", after all, someone has to know how to compute. Ahh! Thanks for the morning "pick me up". :) -bob "whistling while he works" PS and know that I know how to find DLMS, I feel that I may have achieved complete and utter mastery over all computer related fields. :)
"David Fanning" <davidf@dfanning.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1c7d8f8495b4739b989921@news.frii.com... ... > Then we get started, and three hours later when > I find myself saying, "No, *DEVICE* decomposed. > D-E-V-I-C-E. You are typing DEVIOUS," that I > realize I'll be fine, that we aren't going very > far that day or any other. lol, a former brilliant co-grad student's thesis commonly had the typo of INFERNAL CO-ORDINATES instead of "internal co-ordinates". I wonder if she also called the DEVIOUS command. -bob
> I am sure that the above picture is not too far from the actual > experience of at least some people, and maybe even a few > "computer-wise" ones. That is the very experience of a lot of us "computer-wise" ones. -Mike
David Fanning wrote: > Ok, you Linux guys, > > I have to break down and install Linux so I can sort out some > X Windows problems with my IDL widgets. Which flavor is the easiest > to install for the, uh, less technically astute members of > our esteemed organization? :-) I'll suggest SuSE as others have. And while skimming the responses I noticed the issue of IDL windows not regenerating with Linux. I mostly produce postscript files so this hasn't been a big issue for me. I too thought it was the standard behavior. Is there something I can set to fix this.
Mr. No Address writes: > I'll suggest SuSE as others have. And while skimming the responses I > noticed the issue of IDL windows not regenerating with Linux. I mostly > produce postscript files so this hasn't been a big issue for me. I too > thought it was the standard behavior. Is there something I can set to > fix this. No, it's just the way it is with IDL. ;-) Cheers, David -- David Fanning, Ph.D. Fanning Software Consulting, Inc. Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/