| Re: Message From RSI VP of Engineering [message #27501 is a reply to message #27225] |
Wed, 24 October 2001 11:56   |
John-David T. Smith
Messages: 384
Registered: January 2000
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Harold Stevens US.972.952.3293" wrote:
>
> In <9r6ob0$6ot$1@sulawesi-fi.lerc.nasa.gov>, Logan Lindquist:
>
> [Snip...]
>
>> I do not know the details of porting stuff that has been written for Linux
>> over to OS X but I wouldn't image that they would be much different, since
>> OS X is based on a Linux kernel.
>
> Not Linux...FreeBSD. Both *nix, of course, but ports 'twixt *nix is not
> a walk in the park, generally. Then there's the whole zealotry thing in
> porting GUIs between *nixen and their distribution sets. For a while it
> seemed as if some Linux diehards would go to war over Gnome vs. KDE for
> crying out loud. Enough of this GUI jihad especially proprietary; where
> the heck is the science and visualization stuff?
>
> Actually, these kernels don't need any GUI (even *nix's X) to operate.
>
> Now, it's true there is considerable experience porting X among *nix.
>
> Speaking for myself Aqua's just another GUI. If RSI would rather modify
> standard X toolkits and build a low(er)cost IDL port, go for it. I will
> use any X interface they might finally offer mainly since beggars can't
> be choosers. Having cut my teeth on Linux in a world infested with dumb
> ideas like proprietary Winmodems, I'm happy when any vendor makes these
> efforts to port functionality to "niche" environments like OS-X.
I think the most important side-effects of dropping the native OSX
version are being completely missed here. I am perfectly comfortable
with the X/Motif widgets, which I use everyday... especially since I
don't use IDLDE. I suspect most IDL users on OSX would not balk
terribly at the foreign-looking interface (inferior as it may be).
The bigger trouble lies under the hood. IDL for MacOSX had some
significant optimizations for display and within the core engine itself
which are being tossed out with the bath water. The display speed will
suffer, since in effect you're running through *two* levels of display
(the X level, which translates drawing commands into the native display
level). Any use of the much-improved OpenGL OS/hardware support will be
impossible. The powerful AltiVec tuning already accomplished or planned
for the OSX version will not be included.
Here's a small sampling of a feature table comparison, far from
complete:
+=========================================================== ======+
IDL feature comparison OSX Native OSX Straight Unix Port
+=========================================================== ======+
Interface Aqua X/Motif (server required)
Display Speed Fast Slow
3D/OpenGL Optimization Yes No
Altivec Vectorization Complete None, or limited
Separate Core/IDE Threads Yes No
Pervasive PDF Output Yes No
+=========================================================== ======+
The bottom line? If you don't care about a non-native interface, your
worries aren't over. I welcome corrections to this table (especially by
RSI).
I really do like the analogy made by Ron Syml: how would you Windows
users like it if RSI told you they didn't want to support your system,
and the "solution" was to run an X server with IDL for Unix; how would
Unix users like it if they were dropped and told to run a bundled
Windows emulation program on top of IDL for Windows? Somehow, I doubt
you'd chalk it up to "it's just another GUI, what do I care?"
JD
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
