| Re: Top 10 for old farts [message #20832] |
Fri, 28 July 2000 00:00 |
promashkin
Messages: 169
Registered: December 1999
|
Senior Member |
|
|
David Fanning wrote:
> I suppose it is inevitable, as IDL grows ever larger, that
> we begin to pay for add-ons. RSI has already taken this
> course with DataMiner and the Wavelet Toolkit. But I am
> dead set against this proposal, Joe.
I am one hundred percent with David on this. I have the experience of
using products when once you are about done with what you are doing, it
beeps - "err, an add-on module is missing. Call for latest pricing." Not good.
Then again, take it one step further, and have a list of checkboxes when
ordering IDL: I'll buy Strings, Floats; I need no Unsigned longs; I need
For loop and Where but no While, and Plots but no T3D keyword. Sounds
strange, doesn't it? The core of IDL needs to be intact. Applications
written in IDL, like Noesys and Rivertools, can be sold separately by
those who write them, and I guess they are more suitable and
user-friendly for ad-hoc ideas verification, with no coding needed.
> In fact, I haven't written a program for a client in the
> past year that hasn't included at least one object,
> and sometimes it's easier to write the whole thing as
> an object.
I have not been using objects a whole lot until a year ago. Now I am
wishing that I did. Upgradeability of code is a lot better when it is
object oriented. Adding new functions and even totally new functionality
to the existing code is a snap.
> I've frankly pretty much given up the idea of writing
> an object book because (1) it is so damn hard to write
> a book, and (2) after going to all that trouble I thought
> only about a dozen people would buy it. (And I will hear
> from all 12 today, probably, pleading with me to reconsider,
> so desperate is the need for decent documentation.)
Effort like that may not happen to be all wasted, as RSI will probably
ask to buy the copyright and use the book in the IDL help :-)
> Someday, inevitably,
> you are going to be working with objects.
I agree. And, from personal experience, I'd say that using object code
speeds up building applications *a lot*. Even debugging is easier with
more structured arrangement of object methods than with standart widget code.
Cheers,
Pavel
|
|
|
|
| Re: Top 10 for old farts [message #20835 is a reply to message #20832] |
Fri, 28 July 2000 00:00  |
promashkin
Messages: 169
Registered: December 1999
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Joseph B. Gurman" wrote:
> For most scientists, at least astronomers, the three things they
> spend most of their time on are:
>
> 1. writing proposals
>
> 2. writing proposals
>
> 3. writing proposals
If so, then a good word processor is all that is actually needed :-)
Cheers,
Pavel
|
|
|
|
| Re: Top 10 for old farts [message #20836 is a reply to message #20832] |
Fri, 28 July 2000 00:00 |
bjackel
Messages: 10
Registered: September 1993
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Continuing in the apparently pointless, but extremely
interesting discussion about "old farts" and IDL...
We're a mid sized (approximately 12 people) research
group in a physics department. Quite a range of
experience with IDL, ranging from novice to over 10 years.
*One* person here is using objects: me. The only reason
I'm doing that is out of curiosity. The ideas are intellectually
appealing, and some experience with OOP seemed like a good
idea. I've put together some classes for various purposes,
have enjoyed the experience, and will probably never use them for
general purpose work. They are so completely different from
our existing code, and would require some re-tooling on the part
of people here, as well as the collaborators that we share
code with. That's the kind of thing I had plenty of time for
as a student, but won't happen as a researcher.
( Actually, I might argue that the problem with IDL is not
enough object functionality. If *all* variable types were
first class objects which allowed *all* low level function calls
ie. mag= c->abs(), cstar= c->conj() then things might
make some more sense. )
Clearly, there are people out there who find objects very
useful from a programming perspective. I respect that, but
do worry that the good people at RSI might listen a point
of view that may be the majority in this newsgroup, but does
not at all represent our needs here.
As a side note, David Fanning made some brief comment in a
previous message expressing (possibly tongue in cheek?)
incredulity that not everyone was using widgets yet. Again,
*none* of our daily work uses widget-based tools. Don't
get me wrong, I'm a big fan of widgets, and wrote quite a
few during grad school and after. For certain purposes they
are wonderful. However, for evolving research they're rarely
useful. I write functions, try them from the command line,
hook them together with scripts, and look at the results with
direct graphics. After many iterations I (hopefully) figure
out what the appropriate analysis is, and would be ready to
roll it all up into a nice widget bundle. Of course by then
it's time to make some figures for the paper, and then move
onto something entirely different. No time to write the widget,
and no real need.
I'm going to wait until after I've beta-tested 5.4 before
putting together my top 10 wish list, but right now it
simply consists of a general desire for faster more stable
numerical routines and special functions. The core of what
we do is based on math, and if that's not easy and reliable
then nothing else matters. After that, there's I/O to deal
with the different large data sets we use. That's something
that IDL is already superb at, and doing a good job keeping
up with new file types (ie. PNG, CDF).
Brian Jackel
|
|
|
|
| Re: Top 10 for old farts [message #20838 is a reply to message #20832] |
Fri, 28 July 2000 00:00 |
davidf
Messages: 2866
Registered: September 1996
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Nicolas Decoster (Nicolas.Decoster@Noveltis.fr) writes:
> Seriously (once again), it would be nice to be able to pay nothing for
> IDL and to be able to access its source code. That way, people who wants
> to can improve pieces of IDL they use most and this will profit to all
> users. In fact the Top 82495 list (was Top 10) will be add to the next
> IDL version, or at least the most important entries. Great. So why not
> open source IDL ? There will be more and more users, and RSI that knows
> perfectly the product can still earn money with training, consulting or
> very specific products.
Having had occasion recently to re-read Jonathan Swift's
_A Modest Proposal_ I can say that I admire both Mr.
Decoster's and Mr. Swift's wonderful sense of irony. :-)
Cheers,
David
P.S. Oh, you were serious (once again). Well, somehow
I think the chances of this happening are on about the
same order of magnitude as me, say, meeting Mr. Sampras
in this year's Open finals. That is to say (for those
of you who haven't had the opportunity of watching me
play tennis), none too good. :-(
--
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
|
|
|
|
| Re: Top 10 for old farts [message #20839 is a reply to message #20832] |
Fri, 28 July 2000 00:00 |
Nicolas Decoster
Messages: 34
Registered: March 2000
|
Member |
|
|
Hi.
"Joseph B. Gurman" wrote:
>
> Seriously (once again), it would be nice to be able to pay for a
> base license, and add on, at extra cost:
>
> 1. objects
>
> 2. QuickTime support (per codec)
>
> 3. other features requiring RSI to pay license fees (GIF?)
As I never use them, I suggest that direct graphics have to be
considered as add on... The best is to paid only what you use: a price
for every little thing in IDL. On for objects, one for object graphics,
one for direct graphics, one for widget, one for file format features
and even one for array-programming (ok, and one for "IF ... THEN ...").
:-)
Seriously (once again), it would be nice to be able to pay nothing for
IDL and to be able to access its source code. That way, people who wants
to can improve pieces of IDL they use most and this will profit to all
users. In fact the Top 82495 list (was Top 10) will be add to the next
IDL version, or at least the most important entries. Great. So why not
open source IDL ? There will be more and more users, and RSI that knows
perfectly the product can still earn money with training, consulting or
very specific products.
Later,
Nicolas.
--
T�l. : 00 (33) 5 62 88 11 16
Fax : 00 (33) 5 62 88 11 12
Nicolas.Decoster@Noveltis.fr
Noveltis
Parc Technologique du Canal
2, avenue de l'Europe
31520 Ramonville Saint Agne - France
|
|
|
|
| Re: Top 10 for old farts [message #20844 is a reply to message #20832] |
Fri, 28 July 2000 00:00 |
davidf
Messages: 2866
Registered: September 1996
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Joseph B. Gurman (gurman@gsfc.nasa.gov) writes:
> So I still propose that as long as there are lower-priced,
> full-featured student licenses, there should be lower-priced,
> fewer-featured research associates' licenses. The "pro" license can
> include all the wonderful features those with time to use them
> efficiently want.
>
> Seriously (once again), it would be nice to be able to pay for a
> base license, and add on, at extra cost:
>
> 1. objects
>
> 2. QuickTime support (per codec)
>
> 3. other features requiring RSI to pay license fees (GIF?)
I suppose it is inevitable, as IDL grows ever larger, that
we begin to pay for add-ons. RSI has already taken this
course with DataMiner and the Wavelet Toolkit. But I am
dead set against this proposal, Joe.
First of all, objects are integral to the programming
language. There will always be a few of us old scientists
who find it more pleasurable to write programs than to
spend yet one more bleary-eyed night peering through
the peep-hole of a telescope. (Maybe this is all done
through a computer with IDL programs these days, for all
I know.) It would be a shame if people couldn't use the
programs we write.
In fact, I haven't written a program for a client in the
past year that hasn't included at least one object,
and sometimes it's easier to write the whole thing as
an object. PSCONFIG, a program on my web page that is
widely downloaded and praised by people who use it, is
an object program, although I would guess 95% of the
people who use it don't know that. Certainly most of
the programs I add to my library in the future will
be object programs, although I'm not fool enough to
tell anyone that, since just the word itself is enough
to send shivers up the backs of many IDL users. :-)
I've frankly pretty much given up the idea of writing
an object book because (1) it is so damn hard to write
a book, and (2) after going to all that trouble I thought
only about a dozen people would buy it. (And I will hear
from all 12 today, probably, pleading with me to reconsider,
so desperate is the need for decent documentation.)
The lack of good instruction is probably what is holding
the adoption of objects back. I know you say you don't
need them. The people in my course last week were adamant
that they didn't need to know any widget programming, too.
But in the end all they cared about was widget programming
and increased interactivity with their data. I submit that
objects have the same ability to transform how we work
with our data.
Yes, there is more up-front cost. And I'm completely
sympathetic with those scientists who feel they don't
have time to figure it out. If objects are unfamiliar
to you, it is just about impossible to learn about them
from the material that RSI gives you. But in the end
they do more for your science than what you are using
now. That must be the bottom line. Someday, inevitably,
you are going to be working with objects. Maybe you
won't write them. But you sure as heck don't want to
pay extra for them, either.
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
