comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive

Home » Public Forums » archive » IDL 6.0

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

Re: IDL 6.0 [message #34605 is a reply to message #34528]

Fri, 28 March 2003 08:59

JD Smith
Messages: 850
Registered: December 1999

Senior Member

On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:51:37 -0700, Michael A. Miller wrote:

>>>> >> "Michael" == Michael A Miller <mmiller3@iupui.edu> writes:
>
>> That and access to command line arguments like every other
>> language on the planet would go a long way to streamlining my IDL
>> use.
>
> To clarify my point a bit - what I'm getting at is that much of what we
> do here with IDL is interactive, so the "I" in IDL is really great. Even
> more of what we do is along the lines of "take what we've developed
> interactively and repeat it over and over and over ad infinitum." The
> cumbersome methods that are needed to pass parameters to IDL codes from
> outside IDL has resulted in some really ugly kludges around here.
>
> One source of that seems to be that many of us new-old-schoolers
> (troglodytes that is :-) tend to want to string a collection of programs
> together in sequence with a script. To do that with IDL, every tool we
> develop with IDL needs to have an additional layer of code wrapped
> around it to handle the fact that IDL has no access to command line
> arguments. That's something that we (well, ok, I) got used to back in
> the 80's and it is hard to give up. Even though IDL has lots of
> wonderful features, that "I" for interactive makes some harder to get at
> than I'd like.
>
> Ok, I'll get off that soap box now ;-)

The problem is the IDL startup time is long enough that interactive use is
stressed much more than batch use. I.e. the standard response would be
that you should string together your bits of code in an *IDL*
script/batch-file/$MAIN$-level-routine.

If you have other types of code you need to interact with in IDL, call it
from there (as opposed to visa versa). This can be awkward if IDL is
really just a small component of a large process, but it's really the
most convenient way.

JD

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		IDL 6.0 By: jlhall on Thu, 27 March 2003 10:04
		Re: IDL 6.0 By: JD Smith on Mon, 31 March 2003 08:23
		Re: IDL 6.0 By: mmiller3 on Mon, 31 March 2003 07:50
		Re: IDL 6.0 By: wmconnolley on Sun, 30 March 2003 13:54
		Re: IDL 6.0 By: David Fanning on Sat, 29 March 2003 17:08
		Re: IDL 6.0 By: wmconnolley on Sat, 29 March 2003 12:31
		Re: IDL 6.0 By: David Fanning on Sat, 29 March 2003 06:32
		Re: IDL 6.0 By: wmconnolley on Sat, 29 March 2003 06:14
		Re: IDL 6.0 By: MC on Fri, 28 March 2003 16:38
		Re: IDL 6.0 By: JD Smith on Fri, 28 March 2003 08:59
		Re: IDL 6.0 By: mmiller3 on Fri, 28 March 2003 07:51
		Re: IDL 6.0 By: mmiller3 on Fri, 28 March 2003 07:28
		Re: IDL 6.0 By: Randall Skelton on Fri, 28 March 2003 01:47

Previous Topic:	Re: "broken" scale in IDL plot
Next Topic:	Re: PV Wave vs IDL

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Thu Oct 09 22:41:37 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.80024 seconds