| Re: a plea for more reliable mathematical routines [message #17140 is a reply to message #17029] |
Thu, 16 September 1999 00:00   |
FIT
Messages: 9
Registered: June 1999
|
Junior Member |
|
|
David Fanning wrote:
> Arno (fruncan@zedat.fu-berlin.de) writes:
>
>> I definitely disagree. It is inferior to Java, Python, C/C++ (if You're able to
>> program a little bit of OpenGL and Motif yourself) to name only some, far too
>> expensive, introducing new bugs with every release (maybe a merger with Micro$
>> would be adequate), lacking hooks for any reasonable development environment (or
>> have You ever managed to get it to work with Rose or SNiFF+ to name only a few).
>
> Of course it is inferior to Java, Python, C/C++. These languages
> (with the exception of C, which is what IDL is written in) didn't
> even exist when IDL was written. You would hope that new languages
> would be better than old ones. But do you re-write *your* programs
> every time a new, better language comes around? I sure don't.
>
But I also stop using the outdated stuff if time has come.
>
> I don't even have a clue what Rose or SNiFF+ are, and I barely
> know anything at all about Java and Python. And that is part of
> my point. I spend a lot of time with people struggling to learn
> IDL. I'm sure they (like me) look at your alphabet soup of new
> languages to learn and think "Right. All that just to get a line
> plot!?"
>
This may be obe of the few area of application left for IDL - a line plot. I agree.
>
> Yeah, OK, if you know Java and Perl and can throw in a little
> Motif programming so you could get some simple graphic on the
> display, maybe you can do something better than IDL. (Although
> heaven help you if your boss suddenly decides the whole mess should
> be ported to the Mac.) If so, I'm all for it. Go for it.
>
Heaven usually refuses any help porting anything to Macs. Messy programs are usually
written in IDL. Even when You spen considerable effort on producing a mess in Java
(which is pretty easy to port - that's just what all the hype of Java is about -
provided that You don't use native code) You won't be able to produce a mess
comparable to IDL. BTW, up to IDL 5.1 porting was no fun either and for reasons of
display characteristics etc. one patientyl had to distinguish SunOS, MacOS, Win32
etc.
>
> But my point is that even some no-account programmer like me
> can take IDL and figure it out well enough in a short amount of
> time to make a handsome living. I'm pretty darn sure that wouldn't
> have happened if I would have chosen Python or C++ as my language
> of choice.
>
That's part of the problem.
>
> And I've noticed that anyone who can mention five programming
> languages in the same sentence rarely likes IDL. Too simple,
> too high level, too "non-programmer" orientated. Too true. But
> that is *exactly* why it appeals to me and my friends. :-)
>
Well, a FORTRAN 77 style can hardly be called high level.
>
>> Secondly, I definitely did not characterize objects as childish but the way
>> they're used and implemented in IDL (look folks, now we're object oriented !).
>
> No, I suspect you are all for objects, as any thinking
> person would be. :-) What you object to (pun intended) is that
> IDL doesn't look like C++ or Java. It's a valid point. Or
> at least it *would* be if we were talking about a language
> that had been written recently. But we are talking about
> a language that is 16 years old!
As opposed to people visualizing to much I am less concerned with the looks than with
economic factors like cost, schedule, quality etc.
>
>
> I mean, honestly, that fact that IDL is still selling as well
> as it does is not a testament to what a great language it is.
> It is a testament to how hard it is to write something like
> it that can beat it in the marketplace. Software like IDL
> is not expected to live for 16 years! The life span of almost
> any software program is surely limited to single digits,
> just *because* new programming languages come along that
> offer new, more powerful features.
>
A lot of things continue to survive in a university setting. I think I have already
succeeded in cutting IDL's sales in my immediate environment.
>
> I think the fact that something remotely *like* objects can be
> grafted onto IDL in such as way as to greatly extend the
> power of the language is remarkable. I wouldn't have
> expected it, and I'm grateful to have it, even if it
> isn't implemented perfectly.
A syntactic convention ussually requires only change of the lexer/parser.
>
>
> I've no beef with the people who want accurate numerical
> functions and software that works like the documentation
> says it should work. I think this, rather than new features,
> should be the primary focus at RSI, as I've told them
> many, many times. But I have little patience with people
> who complain that IDL isn't like this or that. No, it's not.
> And it is not ever going to be like this or that. Not until
> somebody in a garage somewhere decides that they are going
> to take the very latest, most powerful language and build
> the whole damn thing over again from the ground up.
>
> Somebody has to be looking at the ol' man and thinking
> "I can do better than that." Perhaps that somebody is
> you, Arno. If so, sign me up for the first shipment.
> But in the meantime, I'm going to forego the alphabet
> fog and write myself an IDL program.
>
Have fun !
>
> Best Regards,
>
> 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
--
Functional Imaging Technologies GmbH
Siemensstr. 40/41
12247 Berlin
Germany
fon.: +49 (0)30 76 90 24 80
fax.: +49 (0)30 76 90 24 81
mailto:fit@functional-imaging.com
htp://www.functional-imaging.com
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
