| Top 10 for old farts [message #20847] |
Fri, 28 July 2000 00:00  |
Joseph B. Gurman
Messages: 31
Registered: April 2000
|
Member |
|
|
In article <MPG.13e947d0f2a8c1bf989b70@news.frii.com>,
davidf@dfanning.com (David Fanning) wrote:
Joseph B. Gurman (gurman@gsfc.nasa.gov) writes:
> And I'm very serious about the point above. I may be stuck knowing
> a
> bunch of old farts (not, actually), but maybe one person in twenty
here
> actually uses the object capabilities when given a choice.
Oh, I don't doubt your figures at all. I just think it
is a shame, given how easy objects are to use (and I am
*not* talking about object graphics now) and how
significantly they could change the way your write
programs.
But I'm old enough to remember how we had to bring
all you old farts, uh, excuse me, scientific programmers,
along with widgets, too, so I still hold out hope. :-)
Cheers,
David
David -
I guess you've seen the responses from Mark Hadfield and Luis Alonso
on the overhead involved in using objects. A colleague at another
instituion e-mailed me to say:
I think your
views represent those of many of us older folks trying to use
IDL. I've messed with objects in IDL enough to realize they will
probably destroy what little productivity I seem to have left as
a scientist. Just give me the data arrays--hopefully processed
into a scientifically useful form--and let me get on with the
science part.
(I believe this "older folk" is about 49, or 137 in programmer years.)
The real beauty of IDL for scientists is _not_ its ability to do
everything in the most elegant way possible, but in its capability to do
90% of what we want _very fast_ and to do more elegant things on a
time-invested basis (e.g. really pretty plots; 3D shaded, rotating
surfaces; the ability to save such projections as objects).
For most scientists, at least astronomers, the three things they
spend most of their time on are:
1. writing proposals
2. writing proposals
3. writing proposals
Doing research and writing appears sadly comes in fourth; dealing
with silly bureaucracies fifth; and exploring the programming
capabilities of IDL, perl, tcl, .... somewhere in the nth category.
And it's the grants we get with our proposals (occasionally) that
pay for the IDL licenses.... and maintenance.... and training.... and
even ;-) books.
The grants also pay for graduate students' and programmers' time,
which can be leisurely (and no doubt worthwhile-ly) spent on object
programming in IDL.
So I still propose that as long as there are lower-priced,
full-featured student licenses, there should be lower-priced,
fewer-featured research associates' licenses. The "pro" license can
include all the wonderful features those with time to use them
efficiently want.
Seriously (once again), it would be nice to be able to pay for a
base license, and add on, at extra cost:
1. objects
2. QuickTime support (per codec)
3. other features requiring RSI to pay license fees (GIF?)
BTW, the two people here (one Ph.D., one graduate student) who do
use objects, and use them well, are both on vacation now, so they're not
around to contradict me (heh, heh).
Also BTW, I asked only for _flames_ to be directed to /dev/null, as
I recall.... and David never flames anyone.
Best,
Joe
--
| Joseph B. Gurman, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Solar Physics
| Branch, Greenbelt MD 20771 USA / Federal employees are still
| prohibited from holding opinions while at work. Therefore, any
| opinions expressed herein are somebody else's.
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
