| Paths in the Workbench [message #59471] |
Mon, 31 March 2008 09:17  |
David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Folks,
Has anyone been able to make heads or tails out of how paths
are managed in the IDL Workbench!? This friggin' thing is
driving me CRAZY! I have basically no confidence anymore
that I know what files I'm working with, unless I work
with one project at a time. As a productivity enhancer
(at least on operating systems I know how to use),
I'd give this Workbench is a D-.
Cheers,
David
--
David Fanning, Ph.D.
Fanning Software Consulting, Inc.
Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/
Sepore ma de ni thui. ("Perhaps thou speakest truth.")
|
|
|
|
| Re: Paths in the Workbench [message #59529 is a reply to message #59471] |
Tue, 01 April 2008 10:48  |
David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001
|
Senior Member |
|
|
mgalloy@gmail.com writes:
> a) I don't use two different perspectives; I only use the "Debug"
> perspective (is this what you mean by "being thrown into a completely
> different place"?).
Oh, wow! This is the secret of the Universe! Yes, this makes
things a *whole* lot better. Thanks!
Cheers,
David
--
David Fanning, Ph.D.
Fanning Software Consulting, Inc.
Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/
Sepore ma de ni thui. ("Perhaps thou speakest truth.")
|
|
|
|
| Re: Paths in the Workbench [message #59539 is a reply to message #59471] |
Tue, 01 April 2008 08:48 |
Michael Galloy
Messages: 1114
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 31, 2:59 pm, David Fanning <da...@dfanning.com> wrote:
> I've found TortoiseSNV so convenient that when I had to re-install
> IDL to get my file associations sorted out I decided not to bother
> with the Subversion plug-ins.
I use the command line interface a lot too, but I still find the label
decorations that tell me what files have been changed useful in the
Workbench. Committing with external dependencies with the Workbench
plugin is also easier than with the command line interface.
>> 4. I like the Debug perspective. Much of my use of the workbench is
>> debugging. I'm not sure it has a clear advantage over the old Windows
>> DE, but I like my layout better and there are several small features
>> that are useful. (Please add back conditional breakpoints, though.)
>
> Is there any chance you could bring your computer to lunch some day
> soon?
> I'd buy if you could show me what you like about this. I'm probably
> using
> it completely wrong, but I can't stand being thrown into a completely
> different place. I've tried to turn it off, but discovered you can't,
> at least not totally, so my debugging is a LOT less convenient then
> it used to be. I'd be grateful to know how it was suppose to be done.
I'm trying to think of anything unusual I do for debugging. There's a
couple things I thought of:
a) I don't use two different perspectives; I only use the "Debug"
perspective (is this what you mean by "being thrown into a completely
different place"?).
b) I have moved the views around in the "Debug" perspective quite a
bit:
http://michaelgalloy.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/laptop-w orkbench.png
>> My major complaint is the help system. The help is much slower and
>> doesn't have tabs. I normally keep open the IDL 6.4 help (a silver
>> lining that nothing changed?). This isn't too bad for me anyway since
>> I use the command line a lot too.
>
> Well, I learned how to use Bookmarks, and that's pretty useful.
I guess the main reason this feels so slow is that the search box to
type in is not present when viewing a help page. So if I'm viewing a
help page, to get to another help page I have to go to the "Index",
type in what I'm looking for, and then go to that topic (and it always
takes me a few seconds to realize that the arrows to expand the tree
for topics that contain subtopics are broken).
Mike
--
www.michaelgalloy.com
Tech-X Corporation
Software Developer II
|
|
|
|
| Re: Paths in the Workbench [message #59553 is a reply to message #59471] |
Mon, 31 March 2008 20:49 |
David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Kenneth P. Bowman writes:
> Hmm, saw this in the Reg today
>
> http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2008/03/31/eclpse_e4_feature_r equests/
>
> but then, I'm still at 6.4 ...
The IDE as an on-line application on your browser, written
in JavaScript!! I suppose the on-line documentation will
consist of some herky-jerky video of some guy in mouse
ears trying to show you how to clean your light pen or
something. I hate to say it, but I think the Golden Age
of Computing is over. :-(
Cheers,
David
P.S. I'm not quite 64, but I'm beginning to feel like it. ;-)
--
David Fanning, Ph.D.
Fanning Software Consulting, Inc.
Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/
Sepore ma de ni thui. ("Perhaps thou speakest truth.")
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Paths in the Workbench [message #59557 is a reply to message #59471] |
Mon, 31 March 2008 16:19 |
David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Vince Hradil writes:
> How did you compile your routines in 6.4? You can do it the same way
> in 7.0, right? I'm confused about what has changed. If you manage
> your own path, you can do everything just like you used to, no?
In IDL 6.4 I went to the tab that said Build Order and
moved all my functions to the front of the queue. It was
a pain (because you couldn't export the build order
with your project), but it worked, sorta. In IDL 7,
there is no concept of a build order.
Yes, I could create my own build file (no matter how
fraught with error *that* would be!). And I can use
Notepad as my text editor, too. But after shelling out
nearly $5000 to be able to run the IDL Workbench, I'm
just a tad disappointed with what I got for my money. :-(
Turning everything off so that it works more or less like
it used to work makes me sad, and a tiny bit embarrassed
for ITTVIS. I've been hanging in there for months now,
trying to make this work, but it just gets worse and
worse.
I've resorted to having the "startup" file for my
project set the !PATH based on where the startup
file actually resides on disk. If all the other
folders are referenced with respect to the one
the startup file is in, I can at least locate things.
You just have to remember to only run the startup
file once, otherwise your PATH starts to look like
a UNIX PATH, with directories listed multiple times.
I make one big zip file and just ship the whole kit
and caboodle off to my customer. He can install it
wherever he likes, if he can just manage to find and
run the startup file.
Cheers,
David
--
David Fanning, Ph.D.
Fanning Software Consulting, Inc.
Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/
Sepore ma de ni thui. ("Perhaps thou speakest truth.")
|
|
|
|
| Re: Paths in the Workbench [message #59558 is a reply to message #59471] |
Mon, 31 March 2008 15:11 |
Vince Hradil
Messages: 574
Registered: December 1999
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 31, 4:51 pm, David Fanning <da...@dfanning.com> wrote:
> Vince writes:
>> To use the custom build just create an idl batch file with the compile
>> commands and save it. Then point to that batch file for the custom
>> build.
>
>> For example, say you have a procedure called foo in foo.pro. You
>> could make a text file called compile_foo which may contain:
>> cd, 'c:\foodir'
>> PATH='c:\foodir;c:\neededbyfoodir;'+!PATH
>> .comp foo
>> resolve_all
>> save, /routines, file='foo.sav'
>
> I wish it were that simple. Unfortunately, this particular project
> contains upwards of 100 files, and most of those are objects,
> which RESOLVE_ALL doesn't care much for. :-(
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
>
> P.S. I have a feeling IDL 6.4 might be good for a few more
> years, no matter how much money we thrown into the ITTVIS
> coffers.
How did you compile your routines in 6.4? You can do it the same way
in 7.0, right? I'm confused about what has changed. If you manage
your own path, you can do everything just like you used to, no?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Paths in the Workbench [message #59559 is a reply to message #59471] |
Mon, 31 March 2008 14:51 |
David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Vince writes:
> To use the custom build just create an idl batch file with the compile
> commands and save it. Then point to that batch file for the custom
> build.
>
> For example, say you have a procedure called foo in foo.pro. You
> could make a text file called compile_foo which may contain:
> cd, 'c:\foodir'
> PATH='c:\foodir;c:\neededbyfoodir;'+!PATH
> .comp foo
> resolve_all
> save, /routines, file='foo.sav'
I wish it were that simple. Unfortunately, this particular project
contains upwards of 100 files, and most of those are objects,
which RESOLVE_ALL doesn't care much for. :-(
Cheers,
David
P.S. I have a feeling IDL 6.4 might be good for a few more
years, no matter how much money we thrown into the ITTVIS
coffers.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Paths in the Workbench [message #59561 is a reply to message #59471] |
Mon, 31 March 2008 14:43 |
Vince Hradil
Messages: 574
Registered: December 1999
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 31, 12:20 pm, David Fanning <da...@dfanning.com> wrote:
>> I have been trying to give it the benefit of the doubt. If I turn
>> every feature off (which is pretty much what I have done), then the
>> Workbench is a worse editor than the one in IDL 6.4 and with a memory
>> footprint 10-12 times its previous size. Please tell me there are some
>> redeeming features I've overlooked here. :-(
>
> Of course, I could "build" my project, which works spectacularly
> if I have been careful to write all my project programs as procedures.
> But heaven help you if you thought you needed a function. There is
> no way on God's green Earth you are even going to get *that* project
> to
> build correctly.
>
> I see there is a provision for specifying your own custom build
> command, but
> I can't find hide nor hair of an example that would explain how you
> might do so. :-(
>
> Cheers (but not very cheery, this morning),
>
> David
David,
To use the custom build just create an idl batch file with the compile
commands and save it. Then point to that batch file for the custom
build.
For example, say you have a procedure called foo in foo.pro. You
could make a text file called compile_foo which may contain:
cd, 'c:\foodir'
PATH='c:\foodir;c:\neededbyfoodir;'+!PATH
.comp foo
resolve_all
save, /routines, file='foo.sav'
|
|
|
|
| Re: Paths in the Workbench [message #59562 is a reply to message #59471] |
Mon, 31 March 2008 13:59 |
David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Mike writes:
> 3. Ability to add third party plugins. ITT VIS can't possibly come up
> with all the different features that IDL users want (nor would it be
> usable with all those features). This was I can add things that are
> very useful for *me* (Subversion integration, C/C++ modes, etc.).
I've found TortoiseSNV so convenient that when I had to re-install
IDL to get my file associations sorted out I decided not to bother
with the Subversion plug-ins.
> 4. I like the Debug perspective. Much of my use of the workbench is
> debugging. I'm not sure it has a clear advantage over the old Windows
> DE, but I like my layout better and there are several small features
> that are useful. (Please add back conditional breakpoints, though.)
Is there any chance you could bring your computer to lunch some day
soon?
I'd buy if you could show me what you like about this. I'm probably
using
it completely wrong, but I can't stand being thrown into a completely
different place. I've tried to turn it off, but discovered you can't,
at least not totally, so my debugging is a LOT less convenient then
it used to be. I'd be grateful to know how it was suppose to be done.
> My major complaint is the help system. The help is much slower and
> doesn't have tabs. I normally keep open the IDL 6.4 help (a silver
> lining that nothing changed?). This isn't too bad for me anyway since
> I use the command line a lot too.
Well, I learned how to use Bookmarks, and that's pretty useful. I
start
'er up in the morning while I go milk the cow, and its ready to go
when
I get back. I just leave it on all day, because otherwise my blood
pressure
goes off the chart. :-)
Cheers,
David
|
|
|
|
| Re: Paths in the Workbench [message #59563 is a reply to message #59471] |
Mon, 31 March 2008 11:44 |
Michael Galloy
Messages: 1114
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 31, 11:03 am, David Fanning <da...@dfanning.com> wrote:
> I have been trying to give it the benefit of the doubt. If I turn
> every feature off (which is pretty much what I have done), then the
> Workbench is a worse editor than the one in IDL 6.4 and with a memory
> footprint 10-12 times its previous size. Please tell me there are some
> redeeming features I've overlooked here. :-(
I think my perspective might be clouded by the fact that I only use
the Workbench about half the time or so. For many small things, I just
use a regular editor (TextMate with the IDL bundle) and the command
line. I use the Workbench for debugging and when I work on larger
projects (that need more help navigating). For those situations, I
find the Workbench extremely valuable. But it's not going to replace
TextMate for all my IDL tasks anytime soon.
My top features (over the Windows DE since the Unix benefits are
greater):
1. I like that I can see the "Outline" view and not have to use a
droplist to see the routines in the current file. Together with the
"Project Explorer" view, it helps orient me. I use the Workbench
occasionally just to navigate through a project better.
2. Clicking on a routine name like a hyperlink to take you to the
definition of the routine. Just hold down the control key (command on
Mac) and click on a routine call.
3. Ability to add third party plugins. ITT VIS can't possibly come up
with all the different features that IDL users want (nor would it be
usable with all those features). This was I can add things that are
very useful for *me* (Subversion integration, C/C++ modes, etc.).
4. I like the Debug perspective. Much of my use of the workbench is
debugging. I'm not sure it has a clear advantage over the old Windows
DE, but I like my layout better and there are several small features
that are useful. (Please add back conditional breakpoints, though.)
My major complaint is the help system. The help is much slower and
doesn't have tabs. I normally keep open the IDL 6.4 help (a silver
lining that nothing changed?). This isn't too bad for me anyway since
I use the command line a lot too.
Mike
--
www.michaelgalloy.com
Tech-X Corporation
Software Developer II
|
|
|
|
| Re: Paths in the Workbench [message #59564 is a reply to message #59471] |
Mon, 31 March 2008 11:25 |
David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Paul,
> p.s. Persistence is a virtue; and, boy-o-boy, you've got bucketloads. Persistence,
> I mean. :o)
One of *many* virtues, as I have to remind my wife almost daily. :-(
Cheers,
David
|
|
|
|
| Re: Paths in the Workbench [message #59565 is a reply to message #59471] |
Mon, 31 March 2008 11:18 |
Paul Van Delst[1]
Messages: 1157
Registered: April 2002
|
Senior Member |
|
|
David Fanning wrote:
>> I have been trying to give it the benefit of the doubt. If I turn
>> every feature off (which is pretty much what I have done), then the
>> Workbench is a worse editor than the one in IDL 6.4 and with a memory
>> footprint 10-12 times its previous size. Please tell me there are some
>> redeeming features I've overlooked here. :-(
>
> Of course, I could "build" my project, which works spectacularly
> if I have been careful to write all my project programs as procedures.
> But heaven help you if you thought you needed a function. There is
> no way on God's green Earth you are even going to get *that* project
> to
> build correctly.
>
> I see there is a provision for specifying your own custom build
> command, but
> I can't find hide nor hair of an example that would explain how you
> might do so. :-(
It's a complete over-generalisation, but I think the younger generation eshews
documentation also (and maybe rightly so, given the speed of change. Once the docs are
complete they're already obsolete.)
> Cheers (but not very cheery, this morning),
Understandingly Yours,
paulv
p.s. Persistence is a virtue; and, boy-o-boy, you've got bucketloads. Persistence,
I mean. :o)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Paths in the Workbench [message #59567 is a reply to message #59471] |
Mon, 31 March 2008 10:20 |
David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> I have been trying to give it the benefit of the doubt. If I turn
> every feature off (which is pretty much what I have done), then the
> Workbench is a worse editor than the one in IDL 6.4 and with a memory
> footprint 10-12 times its previous size. Please tell me there are some
> redeeming features I've overlooked here. :-(
Of course, I could "build" my project, which works spectacularly
if I have been careful to write all my project programs as procedures.
But heaven help you if you thought you needed a function. There is
no way on God's green Earth you are even going to get *that* project
to
build correctly.
I see there is a provision for specifying your own custom build
command, but
I can't find hide nor hair of an example that would explain how you
might do so. :-(
Cheers (but not very cheery, this morning),
David
|
|
|
|
| Re: Paths in the Workbench [message #59569 is a reply to message #59471] |
Mon, 31 March 2008 10:03 |
David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Mike writes:
> I do not let the Workbench manage my paths. I did have some pain until
> I discovered the checkbox to have the Workbench not change my path.
I have been trying to give it the benefit of the doubt. If I turn
every feature off (which is pretty much what I have done), then the
Workbench is a worse editor than the one in IDL 6.4 and with a memory
footprint 10-12 times its previous size. Please tell me there are some
redeeming features I've overlooked here. :-(
Even when I'm programming, if I pause to think, some "helpful"
little widget pops up in front of my cursor, obscuring my view and
irritating the hell out of me. Maybe code completion is de riguer
among the young generation, but damn it, I KNOW how to type! I'm
just friggin' THINKING!!!
Cheers,
David
|
|
|
|
| Re: Paths in the Workbench [message #59570 is a reply to message #59471] |
Mon, 31 March 2008 09:22 |
Michael Galloy
Messages: 1114
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 31, 10:17 am, David Fanning <n...@dfanning.com> wrote:
> Has anyone been able to make heads or tails out of how paths
> are managed in the IDL Workbench!? This friggin' thing is
> driving me CRAZY! I have basically no confidence anymore
> that I know what files I'm working with, unless I work
> with one project at a time. As a productivity enhancer
> (at least on operating systems I know how to use),
> I'd give this Workbench is a D-.
I do not let the Workbench manage my paths. I did have some pain until
I discovered the checkbox to have the Workbench not change my path.
Mike
--
www.michaelgalloy.com
Tech-X Corporation
Software Developer II
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
