| Re: IDL 6.0 [message #34519] |
Thu, 27 March 2003 16:30  |
David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Randall Skelton (rhskelto@atm.ox.ac.uk) writes:
> OK, I realize that I am being a tad greedy here but I really do think that
> IDL objects are too limited in their current scope and it is beginning to
> become a real problem for me.
I'm not disagreeing with you at all, Randall. Just doing
my bit to set your expectations appropriately. :-)
> My message to RSI is that I don't really need any more GUI tools,
> spread-sheet views or slow pointy-clicky interfaces.
Let's just say I can't wait to hear your report on the
big RAL shindig in June. It should be ah... interesting. :^)
I will say this, though, and I don't think it breaks
any confidences. I've had a peak at a couple of things
that make my heart beat a whole lot faster. But maybe
I'm just young and in love again, now that it's Spring.
Cheers,
David
--
David W. Fanning, Ph.D.
Fanning Software Consulting, Inc.
Phone: 970-221-0438, E-mail: david@dfanning.com
Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/
Toll-Free IDL Book Orders: 1-888-461-0155
|
|
|
|
| Re: IDL 6.0 [message #34520 is a reply to message #34519] |
Thu, 27 March 2003 15:01  |
Randall Skelton
Messages: 169
Registered: October 2000
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>> My *hope* is that IDL 6 will extend the current object code base and
>> support (1) operator overloading, (2) proper inheritance mechanisms (i.e.
>> avoiding name space clashes that occur in structures), (3) public /
>> private methods and (4) a C-API interface to object/heap variables. I'm
>> also keen to see an object interface to map drawing...
>
> Oh, dear. Maybe in 6.1. :-(
OK, I realize that I am being a tad greedy here but I really do think that
IDL objects are too limited in their current scope and it is beginning to
become a real problem for me. I do a fair amount of multivariate analysis
where a given vector or matrix is really a composite of various different
data sets. I solve large systems of this sort and have a variety of
routines in c/fortran that work on these composite objects efficiently.
In many cases it is as simple as defining an object that holds a vector or
array, with a hash table that describes what various parts of the vector
or array correspond to, and some ancillary stuff about the measurements.
I quite like operator overloading as it makes working with these composite
objects (i.e. solving them as linear/non-linear systems) easy code and
read. I do this all the time in c++, fortran and (recently) Matlab. I
have some great object graphics routines written in IDL to visualize my
data but I really have no way of actually operating on my data without
resorting to writing very cryptic code. Try re-writing:
xh = xh + invert( (1+gamma) * SaI + Kts # k) # $
( Kts # (y_obs-y_f) - SaI # (x_h-x_a) )
when each addition is 'obj->add(a,b)', scalar multiplication is
'obj->shift(1)', and matrix multiplication 'obj->mm(A,B)'. IMHO, data
encapsulation should not prevent people from actually working with their
data in a logical way!
My message to RSI is that I don't really need any more GUI tools,
spread-sheet views or slow pointy-clicky interfaces. What I would like is
a more complete set of core object programming interfaces so I can
program more logically and manipulate/visualize my data more efficiently.
I hate to admit it, but I have been using Matlab a lot recently as it's
object model is more suited to how I code using data objects. Now if only
it had pointers :(
I promise this will be my last 'IDL objects' rant for a while.
Cheers,
Randall
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: IDL 6.0 [message #34616 is a reply to message #34520] |
Thu, 27 March 2003 17:55 |
Michael Asten
Messages: 53
Registered: March 1999
|
Member |
|
|
Randall Skelton wrote:
>
> My message to RSI is that I don't really need any more GUI tools,
> spread-sheet views or slow pointy-clicky interfaces. What I would like is
> a more complete set of core object programming interfaces so I can
> program more logically and manipulate/visualize my data more efficiently.
> I hate to admit it, but I have been using Matlab a lot recently as it's
> object model is more suited to how I code using data objects. Now if only
> it had pointers :(
>
This viewpoint shows an interesting divergence between different classes of
users. I am of the troglodyte school who do not use objects (do I hear a Coyote
howling from the next hill?). But I do use guis to drive my programs, and I dont
like programming guis - I prefer to use ready-made items; I use IDL to get quick
results from my data, not to generate fancy code.
I have found (somewhat to my chagrin) that when I have tried to get professional
programmers interested in using idl for all the obvious reasons, they wont touch
it; a 4GL is beneath them, and anything idl can do, c++/java can do better etc
etc. Which is fine if the outcome desired is a versatile customised piece of
software. But if the criterion is to get code to process the data, in half the
programming time, at half the development price, then the said pro approach is a
lousy answer. The bottom line in my experience is is, those who want the finest
software tools may as well follow the pros to c++/java. The fraction of users
who like idl for its reduced software development time, will probably say with
me, bring on better/more versatile libraries of guis and gui-builders.
Regards,
Michael Asten
>
> I promise this will be my last 'IDL objects' rant for a while.
>
> Cheers,
> Randall
|
|
|
|
| Re: IDL 6.0 [message #34617 is a reply to message #34519] |
Thu, 27 March 2003 16:53 |
David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001
|
Senior Member |
|
|
David Fanning (david@dfanning.com) writes:
> I will say this, though, and I don't think it breaks
> any confidences. I've had a peak at a couple of things
> that make my heart beat a whole lot faster. But maybe
> I'm just young and in love again, now that it's Spring.
Chairman Coyote is obviously intercepting my messages
again, and adding this sexual innuendo. Of course, I
wrote "peek" in my original message. :-(
Cheers,
David
P.S. Let's just say I was going to say something
sarcastic about Mike Miller's "Here, here", but
decided against it on further reflection. :-(
--
David W. Fanning, Ph.D.
Fanning Software Consulting, Inc.
Phone: 970-221-0438, E-mail: david@dfanning.com
Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/
Toll-Free IDL Book Orders: 1-888-461-0155
|
|
|
|
| Re: IDL 6.0 [message #34618 is a reply to message #34520] |
Thu, 27 March 2003 16:33 |
mmiller3
Messages: 81
Registered: January 2002
|
Member |
|
|
>>>> > "Randall" == Randall Skelton <rhskelto@atm.ox.ac.uk> writes:
> My message to RSI is that I don't really need any more GUI
> tools, spread-sheet views or slow pointy-clicky interfaces.
> What I would like is a more complete set of core object
> programming interfaces so I can program more logically and
> manipulate/visualize my data more efficiently.
Here here!
That and access to command line arguments like every other
language on the planet would go a long way to streamlining my IDL
use.
Mike
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
