Re: IDL alternatives? [message #4424 is a reply to message #4421] |
Wed, 31 May 1995 00:00  |
cavanaug
Messages: 18 Registered: December 1994
|
Junior Member |
|
|
In article <3qh748$kc2@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, zowie@banneker.stanford.edu (Craig DeForest) writes:
> Well, I got tired of buggy behavior from my old copy of IDL (3.5.0 for
> Ultrix) (it's dumping core again), and called RSI to get a price on
> the update to 4.0. I've been using IDL for about six months, enough
> time to be excited by the functionality, and horrified at the 1970s
> programmer interface.
I am probably opening myself up for a resounding flaming, but I just
could not help myself . . .
I read in various places (Mr. Deforest's above posting being one) about
how IDL's API is so-o-o-o horrible. I do not understand this. To me,
IDL seems like a Fortran 90 - Pascal morph, with dynamic typing,
automatic variables, automatic garbage collection and a useful event-
driven paradigm all thrown in the mix.
OK, so maybe you have to specify a continuation character, but in C you
have to suffix lines with a ';'. To be honest, I would rather put a '$'
at the end of the few lines I continue than put a ';' at the end of nearly
every line. But here I am digressing. (Let's not get started on RSI's
business practices.)
My point being : it aint LISP, it aint object-oriented, but it does well
(mostly) what it was designed to do.
But maybe I am in the dark about this whole 1970's interface (I have only
been programming since 1989), and I am always open to change. So if you
(or another API slammer) could show tangible evidence that IDL's programming
interface is a lava lamp or mood ring compared to C's video-conferencing or
big-house-with-no-backyard, I will take back all that I have said, and jump
on [insert language X here]'s bandwagon.
Charles
--
Charles Cavanaugh | "Words are very unnecessary, they can only do harm"
cavanaug@ncar.ucar.edu | - Depeche Mode
NCAR Boulder, CO, USA | "Facts all come with points of view"
My opinions | - Talking Heads
|
|
|