| Re: idl2matlab translate-o-matic [message #19074 is a reply to message #19024] |
Tue, 22 February 2000 00:00   |
Pavel Romashkin
Messages: 166
Registered: April 1999
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I have already noticed that David McClain is rather critical about IDL. I am
sure he has his reasons for that and would not try to argue with a negatively
inclined user.
David McClain wrote:
> Perhaps "better than MatLab", but hardly what "professional programmers"
> want.
Professional programmers use assembly language. That's what a professional
programmer, who writes in C, told me. Also, the fact that Matlab's built-in
DLLs take up 950 Mb on a drive (compared to 70 Mb for IDL) tells me that I'd
have to put much more faith in Matlab's programmers than in RSI, for library
functions.
> What can you say of a language that is purely array oriented, but
> cannot comprehend the existence of an empty array?
Agreeing with D.F., I so far had no use for an empty array. I understand it is
not flexible, but I usually work on data other than nothing.
> What of a language that
> can itself reclaim memory from unused arrays, but forces the user to reclaim
> "pointers" and "objects"? Etc., etc., ...
Oh, but you have Heap_gc !..
Cheers,
Pavel
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
