| Re: Cholesky factorisation [message #19067 is a reply to message #18992] |
Tue, 22 February 2000 00:00  |
Craig Markwardt
Messages: 1869
Registered: November 1996
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Pavel Romashkin <pavel@netsrv1.cmdl.noaa.gov> writes:
>
> I can't help hearing some sarcasm regarding IDL in David McClain's
> postings. Why is that? After all, accepting computer's numerical
> precision is a matter of faith, too, especially in life-critical
> applications Raytheon is developing. I find using upper-level
> language like IDL very convenient, and availability of "lower-level"
> tools like pointers is nice. C is great, but so is IDL I think. If
> we don't trust functions written by others, we might as well wright
> everything ourselves in C...
>
I think McClain's point is that the implementation of built-in
functions in IDL is strictly black-box. But in IDL's case, it's more
like black magic... :-)
Seriously though, many of the routines *are* implemented in IDL
itself, and thus inspectable. That's good.
For the built-in routines, however, one has to take it on faith that
RSI did a robust implementation, and Numerical Recipes is not always
the right choice. Floating point precision on a computer is
well-defined these days by the IEEE, and thus I have more faith in it.
Craig
--
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------
Craig B. Markwardt, Ph.D. EMAIL: craigmnet@cow.physics.wisc.edu
Astrophysics, IDL, Finance, Derivatives | Remove "net" for better response
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
