Re: idl2matlab translate-o-matic

[thompson(at)orpheus.nascom.nasa.gov (William Thompson)]

Mirko Vukovic <mvukovic@taz.telusa.com> writes:

>In article <88v2b8$pj1$1@ra.nrl.navy.mil>,
>  "tb" <tbowers@nrlssc.navy.mil> wrote:
>> "Craig Markwardt" <craigmnet@cow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message
>> >
>> > Forgive him, he knows not what he says.
>> >
>> [Snip good talk on why you need stuff that alot of people
>> always seem to ask, "Why do you need that stuff?"]
>>
>> Dammit! You beat me to it!
>stuff deleted
>> If IDL wants to be *the* scientific software development leader, then
>it
>> first needs to be a true application development environment.
>>
>AND it needs to use emacs as official editor. (semi seriously but
>100% wishfull)


Well, I'm also a big emacs fan, but I wouldn't go quite that far.  However, I
would recommend that one be able to use a user-defined editor.  Editors are
always very personal things, and one should be free to use whatever editor one
wishes.

Personally, I mainly use IDL on Unix workstations, and never use idltool--I
tend to feel it just gets in the way.  I certainly would never use the editor
built into idltool except in desperation, even on a PC, simply because I'm so
used to using emacs.  :^)

My vote is for allowing a user-defined alternative editor.

William Thompson