| Re: idl2matlab translate-o-matic [message #19039 is a reply to message #19024] |
Wed, 23 February 2000 00:00   |
thompson
Messages: 584
Registered: August 1991
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Mirko Vukovic <mvukovic@taz.telusa.com> writes:
> In article <88v2b8$pj1$1@ra.nrl.navy.mil>,
> "tb" <tbowers@nrlssc.navy.mil> wrote:
>> "Craig Markwardt" <craigmnet@cow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Forgive him, he knows not what he says.
>>>
>> [Snip good talk on why you need stuff that alot of people
>> always seem to ask, "Why do you need that stuff?"]
>>
>> Dammit! You beat me to it!
> stuff deleted
>> If IDL wants to be *the* scientific software development leader, then
> it
>> first needs to be a true application development environment.
>>
> AND it needs to use emacs as official editor. (semi seriously but
> 100% wishfull)
Well, I'm also a big emacs fan, but I wouldn't go quite that far. However, I
would recommend that one be able to use a user-defined editor. Editors are
always very personal things, and one should be free to use whatever editor one
wishes.
Personally, I mainly use IDL on Unix workstations, and never use idltool--I
tend to feel it just gets in the way. I certainly would never use the editor
built into idltool except in desperation, even on a PC, simply because I'm so
used to using emacs. :^)
My vote is for allowing a user-defined alternative editor.
William Thompson
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
