| Re: GUI Builder limited to Windows platform (LONG) [message #13492 is a reply to message #13329] |
Mon, 16 November 1998 00:00   |
Struan Gray
Messages: 178
Registered: December 1995
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Mirko , mirko_vukovic@notes.mrc.sony.com writes:
> On a related thread, while the programming features of IDL
> are growing, I would hope that the interactive features
> would do the same. Insight may be one attempt, but still
> very limited.
For me, the real benefit of the object orientation is actually
during interactive use. The fact that objects are globally accessible
and encapsulated makes it much easier to mix fully developed,
'production' code and new routines which are still at the
brainstorming stage.
I still do a lot of ad-hoc programming for one-off cases, but
anything that does get used more than a few times quickly migrates
from being a 'temp.pro' file to a full-blown widget, especially if
there are parameters I want to play with interactively (and these can
be algorithmic parameters as well as functional ones). Not
surprisingly, other people are much more willing to use my routines if
I provide them in a packaged form with widget front ends, and now I
can use those widgets myself while mucking about at the command line
with the same data.
I like IDL and try to evangelise it in my lab. RSI deserve credit
for staying multi-platform in a non-trivial way and they do seem to
try and address users' concerns. Prices are always emotive, and
personally I would love to see a cheaper way of distributing completed
applications, but on the other hand I am aware of the dangers of
insufficient cashflow to small businesses who are trying to innovate
and I also can't help wondering how much of the price of IDL is made
up of fixed licensing fees for things like OpenGL that can't be
reduced.
My biggest worry is that there is a tendency for known bugs to
persist forever. My favourite whinge is the lack of tools to monitor
memory usage, but the immortal contour plot problems and the
non-drawing of large offshore islands in direct graphics are other
examples of hugely annoying issues that seem to have been simply
ignored on the way to implementing sexier new features. There are
similar unncessary limitations built into the current object graphics
routines (the IDLgrTrackball object is the least object-like object
I've ever seen and a total pain in the arse to use), and I fear that
they too will be ignored or left to web-archives of known workarounds
to sort out rather than being fixed properly.
Such casual disregard for 'minor bugs' is less of a problem in a
community of IDL gurus who are essentially programming for themselves,
but tilts the learning curve to unnecessarily steep angles for novice
and casual users, which makes life harder for both myself and the RSI
sales force.
Struan
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
