| Re: idl2matlab translate-o-matic [message #18976] |
Tue, 22 February 2000 00:00  |
davidf
Messages: 2866
Registered: September 1996
|
Senior Member |
|
|
David McClain (dmcclain@azstarnet.com) writes:
> Perhaps "better than MatLab", but hardly what "professional programmers"
> want.
Well, I admit I didn't conduct a scientific study, but
I was thinking about what my friends and I like. We're
pretty professional, at least most of the time. Say before
the beer arrives. :-)
> What can you say of a language that is purely array oriented, but
> cannot comprehend the existence of an empty array?
I don't know. I don't know what an empty array is either.
Perhaps that's why I like IDL.
> What of a language that
> can itself reclaim memory from unused arrays, but forces the user to reclaim
> "pointers" and "objects"? Etc., etc., ...
I'm sorry, but I think this *completely* misses the point.
Cleaning up variables is one thing, but checking for *every*
pointer reference at the end of every program module that
exits would bring just about any program--never mind IDL--
to a complete stand-still. It shouldn't be done. I applaud
the folks at RSI for dismissing the idea out of hand.
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
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
