Re: a plea for more reliable mathematical routines

[davidf(at)dfanning.com (David Fanning)]

Arno (fruncan@zedat.fu-berlin.de) writes:

> so let us discuss strategies to migrate from IDL to something reasonable
> (almost everything without common blocks and childish attempts to be object
> oriented).

Oh, come on. I'll be the first to admit that IDL is not
perfect. But it's a hell of a lot better than most of the
alternatives. And after seeing the kinds of programs I
can write with objects, I find your characterization of
objects as "childish" to be ridiculous.

Cheers,

David

P.S. Just for the record, I agree completely with Richard
French that some kind of consolidation of what is already
*in* IDL to make it work correctly is badly overdue. I would
be happy (as I'm sure many of you would be) to forgo six
months of new features to have the NLEVELS keyword to the
CONTOUR command actually compute N levels. :-)

-- 
David Fanning, Ph.D.
Fanning Software Consulting
Phone: 970-221-0438 E-Mail: davidf@dfanning.com
Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/
Toll-Free IDL Book Orders: 1-888-461-0155