Re: Top 10 IDL Requests

[Nicolas Decoster <Nicolas.Decoster(at)Noveltis.fr>]

"Joseph B. Gurman" wrote:
>  
>     No, that kid can get a _real_ job as a programmer for a dot.com, and
> doesn't have to work the same hours for beans as a civil servant
> scientist. Since programmers are now worth more to society than
> scientists (as measured purely by salaries), it's clearly a waste of a
> high-demand resource to have real programmers write code for scientific
> research. ;-)
> 
>     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.

I use objects. I am new in IDL (few month): I was not stuck to old
stuff. I use object graphics to draw my figures since the begining.

In fact I am a "scientist programmer": I don't work for a dot.com, I
write code  for (my) scientific research. As a programmer I think
objects are very usefull to build clean application or data processing.
As a programmer I think that some IDL features are badly conceived. As a
scientist I think that there are very interesting features, that do all
the work without pain. As a scientist sometime I need to know how IDL do
the work: I need to inspect the IDL-hidden-code.

Joseph B. Gurman (gurman@gsfc.nasa.gov) writes:
>
> 3. with NO object interfaces, since it's scientists who are doing a lot
> of the programming, and I can't see why we're paying for features we
> never use (however gnarly).

I agree, I don't want to pay for direct graphics: I never use them. :-)

Later.

Nicolas.

--
Tél. : 00 (33) 5 62 88 11 16
Fax  : 00 (33) 5 62 88 11 12
Nicolas.Decoster@Noveltis.fr

Noveltis
Parc Technologique du Canal
2, avenue de l'Europe
31520 Ramonville Saint Agne - France