| Re: How far is OO implemented in IDL? [message #26496 is a reply to message #26481] |
Wed, 05 September 2001 13:54   |
Paul van Delst
Messages: 364
Registered: March 1997
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Mirko Vukovic wrote:
>
> David Fanning <david@dfanning.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.15ffce623d91ea6989694@news.frii.com>...
>> Olaf Stetzer (olaf.stetzer@imk.fzk.de) writes:
>>
>>> I know that Object Oriented Programming is supported
>>> in IDL but I wonder how far this concept is supported?
>>
>> Almost never as far as you would have hoped if
>> you know much about real object-oriented programming.
>> Remember, objects were graphed onto a language
>> that was nearly 20 years old at the time.
>>
> stuff deleted...
>
> With all due respect to David and RSI, I am wondering how valid this
> argument in defense of RSI is. So, shooting off the hip:
>
> It seems that a 50 year old language is going object these days
> (fortran).
>
> Yes, RSI will have a problem improving IDL if they keep to the old
> core. Are we supposed to keep working with that old and tired
> language? Will RSI get new users with such an outdated product?
> Unless RSI works actively on rejuveniting IDL, they will loose out.
It seems to me that you are assuming that any perceived failings of the implementation of
object stuff in IDL (e.g. lack of an operator overloading capability) is due to the core of IDL
being old and dusty. I don't know that's true. The implication of David's email is that it is
but David does not represent RSI....anymore at least (although he'd know more than anyone else
I'm sure.)
Since you brought up Fortran, I'll go with that. I've got keyboard/mouse elbow so here's a
summary:
- F77 is similar to procedural IDL, e.g. v3.6 (?)
- F90/F95 has some OO components (modules, private/public atrributes allowing data
encapsulation etc..)
- IDL now has a lot of OO components
- F2K is slated to have even more OO stuff (polymorphism etc.)
- Future version of IDL will also have more OO stuff. Who's to say operator overloading won't
be include in some future IDL release?
So I really don't see what the issue is here. Everything seems to be progressing along quite
smoothly. If it's a case of "I don't like how IDL does implements this or that", well - I can
find about 10 people who think the exact same thing about 3-5 or so other languages just by
walking down the hall and sticking my head in every other cubicle. Wot I would GIVE to have the
Fortran equivalent of the IDL WHERE function (yes, I know f90/95 has a WHERE construct but it
doesn't return the indices for using on other stuff)
> As a side-note, IDL was written in fortran 20 years ago, and
> re-written in C some 10 years ago.
And now it's probably (I don't know) written in C++. So?
paulv
--
Paul van Delst Religious and cultural
CIMSS @ NOAA/NCEP purity is a fundamentalist
Ph: (301)763-8000 x7274 fantasy
Fax:(301)763-8545 V.S.Naipaul
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
