comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive

Home » Public Forums » archive » Re: Interesting Rant

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

Re: Interesting Rant [message #51361 is a reply to message #51305]

Thu, 16 November 2006 08:02

Paul Van Delst[1]
Messages: 1157
Registered: April 2002

Senior Member

Robbie wrote:
> He is just pointing out the obvious. IDL appears to be a haphazardly
> defined language. Many things are simply historical, and no one company
> or person has been able to gain enough control to make things right.
> Python is a good example of a language which has been built properly,

Regarding properly built languages, if you like Python, take a lookee at Ruby. Veddy
nice... and I can indent as much or as little as I want! :o)

I wonder how the decisions were/are made at RSI/ITTVIS regarding the routine naming and
syntax rules. Formally standardised languages (e.g. Fortran90/95/2003, C89/99, etc)
typically lag behind (sometimes a wee bit too much) the bleeding edge of CS innovations --
and that's usually considered a feature. When the neato programming trick du jour is
validated with years of use/trial/error, it's included in the standard with (hopefully)
sufficient care taken to not break existing legacy code. "Community" standardised
languages (e.g. Ruby, and I presume Python, Perl, etc) have a faster turnaround, but I
think the end result/want/need is the same - more useful (as oppoed to just flashy)
features but don't break old code. Proprietary language (e.g. IDL, Matlab)
standardisation.... well, I don't know how they do it. There is no formal user community
input sought by as far as I can tell (for IDL at least, dunno about matlab). I don't think
a marketing type asking "What do you want/need?" fully qualifies.

Anyway...

cheers,

paulv

--
Paul van Delst Ride lots.
CIMSS @ NOAA/NCEP/EMC Eddy Merckx
Ph: (301)763-8000 x7748
Fax:(301)763-8545

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		Re: Interesting Rant By: Braedley on Wed, 15 November 2006 07:47
		Re: Interesting Rant By: Jo Klein on Wed, 15 November 2006 07:20
		Re: Interesting Rant By: Maarten[1] on Wed, 15 November 2006 07:17
		Re: Interesting Rant By: K. Bowman on Wed, 15 November 2006 06:47
		Re: Interesting Rant By: greg michael on Wed, 15 November 2006 07:03
		Re: Interesting Rant By: David Fanning on Wed, 15 November 2006 06:10
		Re: Interesting Rant By: Maarten[1] on Wed, 15 November 2006 05:25
		Re: Interesting Rant By: Robbie on Tue, 14 November 2006 17:13
		Re: Interesting Rant By: James Kuyper on Tue, 14 November 2006 15:25
		Re: Interesting Rant By: Richard Edgar on Tue, 14 November 2006 11:13
		Re: Interesting Rant By: David Fanning on Tue, 14 November 2006 11:09
		Re: Interesting Rant By: news.qwest.net on Tue, 14 November 2006 10:56
		Re: Interesting Rant By: Paul Van Delst[1] on Tue, 14 November 2006 10:36
		Re: Interesting Rant By: David Fanning on Wed, 15 November 2006 10:44
		Re: Interesting Rant By: Earl F. Glynn on Wed, 15 November 2006 09:19
		Re: Interesting Rant By: Paul Van Delst[1] on Thu, 16 November 2006 08:02
		Re: Interesting Rant By: Earl F. Glynn on Wed, 15 November 2006 09:07
		Re: Interesting Rant By: Jeff Hester on Sat, 18 November 2006 13:42
		Re: Interesting Rant By: fburton on Wed, 15 November 2006 10:24
		Re: Interesting Rant By: Paolo Grigis on Wed, 15 November 2006 09:02

Previous Topic:	Color background with PLOT
Next Topic:	Re: Image warping in IDL

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Wed Oct 08 19:23:21 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00583 seconds