comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive » Re: Which is better WAVE or IDL?

Home » Public Forums » archive » Re: Which is better WAVE or IDL?

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Re: Which is better WAVE or IDL? [message #3441 is a reply to message #3364]

Mon, 23 January 1995 16:55

mahan
Messages: 17
Registered: October 1994

Junior Member

Iarla Kilbane-Dawe (iarla@atm.ch.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: I'm curious to know what anyone who may have used both systems
: might have to say about comparing the two. We use PV-WAVE
: but I've been told that IDL is

They have the same origin, but from my experience w/ running a couple of
pieces of computationally intensive code- RSI's IDL is about a factor
of 2 faster than PV-Wave on a SUN MP690-52 running Solaris 2.3. This
measure was done in the Summer of 1994. One of the tests that I ran was
a modified version of RSI's time_test code. The modification was
necessary for compatibility w/ VNI's pv-wave.

Regarding RSI's IDL and some benchmarks of IDL versions of Fortran 77
code and their Fortran 77 counterparts on several platforms, I'll
recommend the July/August 1994 issue of Computers in Physics, pg 439.
In this review article there are several platforms w/ corresponding
timings.

-Steve

------------------------------------------------------------ -----------
Stephen L. Mahan Telephone: 615-974-7847 Fax: 615-974-7843
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		Re: Which is better WAVE or IDL? By: rep2857 on Sun, 22 January 1995 11:18
		Re: Which is better WAVE or IDL? By: hrebhan on Fri, 20 January 1995 08:14
		Re: Which is better WAVE or IDL? By: pjclinch on Fri, 20 January 1995 05:24
		Re: Which is better WAVE or IDL? By: mahan on Mon, 23 January 1995 16:55

Previous Topic:	Re: why do'nt VNI archives accept?
Next Topic:	RSI's post re: RT Lic

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Sat Nov 29 05:17:47 PST 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 1.28190 seconds