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

Re: IDL vs GDL
type: item
description: David Higgins writes: > Does it work well? (Apart from not-yet-implemented routines, of > course.) It probably depends on how many of those not-yet-implemented routines you think you have to use in the course of a normal day. Cheers, David -- David Fanning, Ph.D. Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming (www.dfanning.com) Sepore ma de ni thui. ("Perhaps thou speakest truth.")
creator: David Fanning
date: 2009-08-25T15:03:17-00:00

Re: IDL vs GDL
type: item
description: I use it only occasionally, when I want to give to someone a program I wrote in IDL. But I frequently find that I used some library routine not in GDL, so it does not help. I think GDL is a very good idea in principle, but it seems to me that the project is not very active, so the missing features will remain missing for a long time. It seems to have the significant advantage, compared to IDL, of talking to Python without the added cost of Slither, but I have never tried to use it with Python. In a related issue, does anybody use PV-WAVE? If so, how does its current version compare to a current IDL? I did not find any PV-WAVE topics in recent years in this group.
creator: penteado
date: 2009-08-25T18:13:10-00:00

Re: IDL vs GDL
type: item
description: David Higgins wrote: > Has anyone with extensive IDL experience used GDL (GNU Data Language), > a free IDL-compatible incremental compiler (ie. runs IDL programs). > > Does it work well? (Apart from not-yet-implemented routines, of > course.) > > Many thanks > Dave My experience is that it works well. The language features are fully implemented, but the library is obviously not complete. Also, you must compile GDL before using it, which is not trivial since it has several prerequisites. Mike -- www.michaelgalloy.com Associate Research Scientist Tech-X Corporation
creator: Michael Galloy
date: 2009-08-25T18:19:33-00:00

Re: IDL vs GDL
type: item
description: On Aug 25, 3:19 pm, mgalloy <mgal...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also, you must compile GDL before using it, which is not trivial since > it has several prerequisites. Not necessarily. It has existed as an rpm in the Fedora repository, since around Fedora 5 or 6. Which makes it a lot easier to install (and to work after installed) than IDL, which frequently breaks when a new version of Fedora comes out. The package I have installed is gdl-0.9-0.5.rc2.20090312.fc11.x86_64
creator: penteado
date: 2009-08-25T18:26:46-00:00

Re: IDL vs GDL
type: item
description: See also 'Fawlty Language' for another free alternative; http://fl.net23.net/ Cheers.
creator: russell.grew
date: 2009-08-26T03:06:00-00:00

Re: IDL vs GDL
type: item
description: On Aug 26, 12:06 am, RussellGrew <russell.g...@gmail.com> wrote: > See also 'Fawlty Language' for another free alternative; > > http://fl.net23.net/ Thanks! Somebody had told me about it, but I had completely forgotten to check it out.
creator: penteado
date: 2009-08-26T03:27:41-00:00

Re: IDL vs GDL
type: item
description: RussellGrew schrieb: > See also 'Fawlty Language' for another free alternative; > > http://fl.net23.net/ > > Cheers. If one needs to deal with FORTRAN unformatted binary files (as I do), this is not an option since, as I learned recently, this feature is not implemented (/f77 or /f77_unformatted will lead to "keyword not allowed" message). However, with GDL this works nice. Cheers, Florian
creator: Florian Buerzle
date: 2009-08-27T10:08:56-00:00