[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Top 10 for old farts
- Subject: Re: Top 10 for old farts
- From: "Mark Hadfield" <m.hadfield(at)niwa.cri.nz>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:09:47 +1200
- Cache-Post-Path: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.idl-pvwave
- Organization: NIWA
- References: <gurman-FF65F5.email@example.com>
- Xref: news.doit.wisc.edu comp.lang.idl-pvwave:20505
"Joseph B. Gurman" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> I guess you've seen the responses from Mark Hadfield and Luis Alonso
> on the overhead involved in using objects.
Speaking only for myself (not Luis) I should elaborate.
As David has already pointed out so well elsewhere in this thread
"OBJECTS" does not equal "OBJECT GRAPHICS"
Objects were a necessary development in IDL and are certainly a good thing
IMHO. Well, OK some of the design decisions were debatable.
Object graphics were also a necessary development but are less obviously a
good thing. The main problem with them is that producing a simple plot using
IDL's standard object graphics facilities is ridiculously difficult. It's
possible to finish RSI's job by writing a set of smarter, higher-level
graphics classes & routines but it's a lot of work. Hence my comment about
National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research
PO Box 14-901, Wellington, New Zealand