| Back to idl after a looong time... [message #23394] |
Tue, 23 January 2001 13:57  |
Guillaume Dargaud
Messages: 15
Registered: January 2001
|
Junior Member |
|
|
OK, it's been 12 years since I last used IDL, so I'm really back to square
one.
I'm using it on an SGI unix machine, in command line mode. I see most of the
tutorials on the web seem to imply that there is a complete environment
also.
How do I get that (or is it only for Windows) ?
--
Guillaume Dargaud
Colorado State University - Dept of Atmospheric Science
http://rome.atmos.colostate.edu/
"I either want less corruption, or more chance to participate in it." -
Ashleigh Brilliant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Back to idl after a looong time... [message #23528 is a reply to message #23394] |
Thu, 01 February 2001 16:37  |
Stuart Norton
Messages: 3
Registered: February 2001
|
Junior Member |
|
|
>>> The only problem with this is that the IDLDE just sucks. Even more than
>>> the Windows version. I never used it.
>>
>> Oh, never used it but it sucks? Very competent characterization. I guess
>> I am not with you on this one. I use IDL DE every day and it works just
>> fine for me.
I have tried the UNIX IDLDE (5.3 and 5.4 both, I believe) and quickly gave
up... my problem is that I write very buggy code and so I have to hit
Ctrl-C all too often. I ran into a problem because IDLDE seems to become
completely unresponsive when running a program from the 'command line'. It
doesn't halt when I ask it to, whether I use Ctrl-C or the "quit doing
that right now" button (I forget the label on that button). In fact, if I
cover it with another window and bring it to the top again, it doesn't
even redraw itself until it's done thinking. I can see how that behavior
might be nice if you really want it to focus on executing the code
quickly, but it made IDLDE unusable for me.
Doesn't this happen to the rest of you? If not, why not? Is it a UNIX
problem? Anybody not have this problem when running IDLDE from UNIX?
Thanks,
Stuart
p.s. I'm an aspiring lurker. Just found out about the newsgroup from
David's book. One very, very fluffy cat... who I think is getting to be a
little crazy because he's very staticky, and every time you pet him he
gets a sharp electric shock. The blend of positive and negative feedback
must be a bit confusing for him.
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
--- Stuart Norton ---
--- stuart@ucolick.org ---
--- Astronomy & Astrophysics - University of California ---
--- Santa Cruz, CA 95064 ---
--- (831) 459-4362 ---
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
|
|
|
|
| Re: Back to idl after a looong time... [message #23585 is a reply to message #23394] |
Tue, 30 January 2001 04:41 |
Alex Schuster
Messages: 124
Registered: February 1997
|
Senior Member |
|
|
David Fanning wrote:
> Alex Schuster (alex@pet.mpin-koeln.mpg.de) writes:
>
>> Okay-okay, looks like some people really like it. I had tried it,
>> but was disappointed and continued using the command line version. I
>> must admit that I first hadn't figured out that I could have multiple
>> edit windows outside the development environment, that was the biggest
>> drawback. Am I right that this is still the case in the Windows
>> version?
>
> As far as I know there is no limit to the number of edit windows
> you can have open in the IDLDE. At least, I've never run up
> against a *practical* limit, and I've had lots and lots open
> at once. :-)
That�s right, but I meant windows OUTSIDE the IDLDE. I just do not like
to have a big window inside of which all my edit windows reside. Under
Unix, I can place these windows outside the IDLSE if I want, anywhere on
the screen. In Windows, I can at least place all info windows like the
variable watch or the command line outside the main window, but not the
edit windows. I�d prefer to have it the other way around. And, maybe, if
I had noticed from the beginning that this limit wasn�t in the Unix
version, I might have used it more frequently. But maybe not, I miss
features like saving all windows on exit, so I don�t have to reload them
after exiting IDL. You know, in these days before .RESET_SESSION, which
my IDL doesn�t know about yet.
>> There are some nice features like the variable
>> watch, but yes, David, I'm just fine with print
>> statements for debugging. Am I too old-fashioned here?
>
> I'm getting better with the debugger (and of course
> it is wonderful and works great), but for the quick
> look I confess I still use Print statements, too. :-)
And that without noticing the existence of .SKIP.
Alex
--
Alex Schuster Wonko@weird.cologne.de PGP Key available
alex@pet.mpin-koeln.mpg.de
|
|
|
|
| Re: Back to idl after a looong time... [message #23609 is a reply to message #23394] |
Mon, 29 January 2001 08:04 |
davidf
Messages: 2866
Registered: September 1996
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Alex Schuster (alex@pet.mpin-koeln.mpg.de) writes:
> Okay-okay, looks like some people really like it. I had tried it,
> but was disappointed and continued using the command line version. I
> must admit that I first hadn't figured out that I could have multiple
> edit windows outside the development environment, that was the biggest
> drawback. Am I right that this is still the case in the Windows version?
As far as I know there is no limit to the number of edit windows
you can have open in the IDLDE. At least, I've never run up
against a *practical* limit, and I've had lots and lots open
at once. :-)
> There are some nice features like the variable
> watch, but yes, David, I'm just fine with print
> statements for debugging. Am I too old-fashioned here?
I'm getting better with the debugger (and of course
it is wonderful and works great), but for the quick
look I confess I still use Print statements, too. :-)
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
|
|
|
|
| Re: Back to idl after a looong time... [message #23610 is a reply to message #23463] |
Mon, 29 January 2001 07:00 |
Alex Schuster
Messages: 124
Registered: February 1997
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Pavel A. Romashkin" wrote:
> Alex Schuster wrote:
>>
>> The only problem with this is that the IDLDE just sucks. Even more than
>> the Windows version. I never used it.
>
> Oh, never used it but it sucks? Very competent characterization. I guess
> I am not with you on this one. I use IDL DE every day and it works just
> fine for me.
:-) Okay-okay, looks like some people really like it. I had tried it,
but was disappointed and continued using the command line version. I
must admit that I first hadn't figured out that I could have multiple
edit windows outside the development environment, that was the biggest
drawback. Am I right that this is still the case in the Windows version?
I also have all my code formatted with the tab being 4 characters, not 8
as usual, but the Unix IDLDE has no option for that, unlike the Windows
version. And there were some other inconveniences, like way too huge and
ugly dialogs cluttering my desktop, so I never migrated. There are some
nice features like the variable watch, but yes, David, I'm just fine
with print statements for debugging. Am I too old-fashioned here?
Alex
--
Alex Schuster Wonko@weird.cologne.de PGP Key available
alex@pet.mpin-koeln.mpg.de
|
|
|
|
| Re: Back to idl after a looong time... [message #23647 is a reply to message #23394] |
Wed, 07 February 2001 08:56 |
Pavel A. Romashkin
Messages: 531
Registered: November 2000
|
Senior Member |
|
|
JD Smith wrote:
> http://mac-emacs.sourceforge.net/
Yeah, I know. I installed it, then threw it away. Mac OS is not
multitasking (in truth, despite looking like it), so IDLwave does not
work in Emacs on Mac OS.
> Also, with MacOSX coming, with its FreeBSD/Mach core, getting a fully
> up-to-date emacs running should be trivial.
Geez. Have you ever seen the GUI on the OSX? It looks exactly as the
name of the system *reads* - "o-o-sex". Very sexy. Even a little scary -
I am not sure I like it when your toolbar swells up when you happen to
move the mouse over it, and your image files snake out of their
locations in the form of a steam swirl over a coffe cup, then pop open
with a noise. I am *not* upgrading to OSX any time soon. So I will just
take my pleasure in watching the rest of you guys enjoying the IDLwave
mode :-)
Cheers,
Pavel
|
|
|
|
| Re: Back to idl after a looong time... [message #23648 is a reply to message #23394] |
Wed, 07 February 2001 07:43 |
John-David T. Smith
Messages: 384
Registered: January 2000
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Martin Schultz wrote:
>
> "Pavel A. Romashkin" wrote:
>>
>> Martin Schultz wrote:
>>
>>> I only reply here, because I could not see anyone mention the one and
>>> only most wonderful idlwave mode for (X)Emacs distributed by Carsten
>>> Dominik : http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~dominik/Tools/idlwave/
>>
>> Make sure it works on my darn Mac, too!
>> No luck for me here. Sorry. The IDLDE mode that "sucks" for others is my
>> only option :-(
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Pavel
>
> Hi Pavel, you forgot the ;-) after "Mac". It just must be a joke after
> Craig's recent post. Anyway, the fact there is no emacs for the Mac
> tells me there is something wrong with this system ;-)
http://mac-emacs.sourceforge.net/
Also, with MacOSX coming, with its FreeBSD/Mach core, getting a fully
up-to-date emacs running should be trivial.
http://www.porkrind.org/emacs/ talks about one effort in that
direction. So, if you're looking forward to OSX and would like to run
IDLWAVE to its full potential (or are just tired of the IDLDE), you
might want to start lobbying RSI now to be sure and include a MacOSX
terminal version of IDL, in addition to the DE. It should be pretty
trivial to perform that port.
JD
|
|
|
|
| Re: Back to idl after a looong time... [message #23670 is a reply to message #23528] |
Mon, 05 February 2001 06:05 |
Alex Schuster
Messages: 124
Registered: February 1997
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Stuart Norton wrote:
> I have tried the UNIX IDLDE (5.3 and 5.4 both, I believe) and quickly gave
> up... my problem is that I write very buggy code and so I have to hit
> Ctrl-C all too often. I ran into a problem because IDLDE seems to become
> completely unresponsive when running a program from the 'command line'. It
> doesn't halt when I ask it to, whether I use Ctrl-C or the "quit doing
> that right now" button (I forget the label on that button). In fact, if I
> cover it with another window and bring it to the top again, it doesn't
> even redraw itself until it's done thinking. I can see how that behavior
> might be nice if you really want it to focus on executing the code
> quickly, but it made IDLDE unusable for me.
>
> Doesn't this happen to the rest of you? If not, why not? Is it a UNIX
> problem? Anybody not have this problem when running IDLDE from UNIX?
Uh, I think it's even worse in the Windows version.
This weekend, I gave the it a try at home. The first thing I tried was a
PRINT, 'HELLO'. It worked very well. Then I tried one of my bigger
programs. IDL started to print many, many error messages, opened many
edit windows, and continued doing so for about ten minutes. Without
reacting to anything, except killing it via the tasklist.
It turned out that I used a @CLU to execute a start script called CLU,
but the Windows IDL ignored this file and just executed a clu.pro, which
is a set of procedures, not a script file.
I still prefer the Unix version and the command line (because they suck
less).
Alex
--
Alex Schuster Wonko@weird.cologne.de PGP Key available
alex@pet.mpin-koeln.mpg.de
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Max Woes Re: Back to idl after a looong time... [message #23815 is a reply to message #23770] |
Sat, 17 February 2001 07:18 |
Joseph B. Gurman
Messages: 31
Registered: April 2000
|
Member |
|
|
In article <MPG.14f1eb2d68462af8989d56@news.frii.com>,
davidf@dfanning.com (David Fanning) wrote:
> Pavel A. Romashkin (pavel.romashkin@noaa.gov) writes:
>
>> Besides, if the code works on a Mac, it
>> certainly does on any other platform.
>
> This I can well believe. But if we all have to
> start working to *this* lowest common denominator,
> we are going to see some simple-minded programs,
> indeed. :-(
Well, I gues some of the reasons all of our routines work under Mac
OS 9.x as well as various other platforms is that we only use 8-bit
color, and color tables. A holdover from the Bad Old Days when all we
could get on workstations were 8-bit cards, but it does make saving the
images as GIFs a lot more straightforward.
Oh, wait, we can't do that anymore, can we?
Joe Gurman
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
