| Re: IDL vs GDL [message #67832] |
Thu, 27 August 2009 03:08 |
Florian Buerzle
Messages: 1
Registered: August 2009
|
Junior Member |
|
|
RussellGrew schrieb:
> See also 'Fawlty Language' for another free alternative;
>
> http://fl.net23.net/
>
> Cheers.
If one needs to deal with FORTRAN unformatted binary files (as I do),
this is not an option since, as I learned recently, this feature is not
implemented (/f77 or /f77_unformatted will lead to "keyword not allowed"
message). However, with GDL this works nice.
Cheers,
Florian
|
|
|
|
| Re: IDL vs GDL [message #67846 is a reply to message #67832] |
Tue, 25 August 2009 20:27  |
penteado
Messages: 866
Registered: February 2018
|
Senior Member
Administrator |
|
|
On Aug 26, 12:06 am, RussellGrew <russell.g...@gmail.com> wrote:
> See also 'Fawlty Language' for another free alternative;
>
> http://fl.net23.net/
Thanks! Somebody had told me about it, but I had completely forgotten
to check it out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: IDL vs GDL [message #67849 is a reply to message #67847] |
Tue, 25 August 2009 11:26 |
penteado
Messages: 866
Registered: February 2018
|
Senior Member
Administrator |
|
|
On Aug 25, 3:19 pm, mgalloy <mgal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, you must compile GDL before using it, which is not trivial since
> it has several prerequisites.
Not necessarily. It has existed as an rpm in the Fedora repository,
since around Fedora 5 or 6. Which makes it a lot easier to install
(and to work after installed) than IDL, which frequently breaks when a
new version of Fedora comes out.
The package I have installed is gdl-0.9-0.5.rc2.20090312.fc11.x86_64
|
|
|
|
| Re: IDL vs GDL [message #67850 is a reply to message #67849] |
Tue, 25 August 2009 11:19 |
Michael Galloy
Messages: 1114
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
David Higgins wrote:
> Has anyone with extensive IDL experience used GDL (GNU Data Language),
> a free IDL-compatible incremental compiler (ie. runs IDL programs).
>
> Does it work well? (Apart from not-yet-implemented routines, of
> course.)
>
> Many thanks
> Dave
My experience is that it works well. The language features are fully
implemented, but the library is obviously not complete.
Also, you must compile GDL before using it, which is not trivial since
it has several prerequisites.
Mike
--
www.michaelgalloy.com
Associate Research Scientist
Tech-X Corporation
|
|
|
|
| Re: IDL vs GDL [message #67852 is a reply to message #67850] |
Tue, 25 August 2009 11:13 |
penteado
Messages: 866
Registered: February 2018
|
Senior Member
Administrator |
|
|
I use it only occasionally, when I want to give to someone a program I
wrote in IDL. But I frequently find that I used some library routine
not in GDL, so it does not help. I think GDL is a very good idea in
principle, but it seems to me that the project is not very active, so
the missing features will remain missing for a long time. It seems to
have the significant advantage, compared to IDL, of talking to Python
without the added cost of Slither, but I have never tried to use it
with Python.
In a related issue, does anybody use PV-WAVE? If so, how does its
current version compare to a current IDL? I did not find any PV-WAVE
topics in recent years in this group.
|
|
|
|
| Re: IDL vs GDL [message #67864 is a reply to message #67852] |
Tue, 25 August 2009 08:03 |
David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001
|
Senior Member |
|
|
David Higgins writes:
> Does it work well? (Apart from not-yet-implemented routines, of
> course.)
It probably depends on how many of those not-yet-implemented
routines you think you have to use in the course of a
normal day.
Cheers,
David
--
David Fanning, Ph.D.
Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming (www.dfanning.com)
Sepore ma de ni thui. ("Perhaps thou speakest truth.")
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
