RE: Diffraction Program and Data Standards

[Mark Rivers <RIVERS@BNLX26.NSLS.BNL.GOV>]

Tim Mooney writes:

>PLPLOT is quite an easy data-plotting library to use, is free, and has
>been ported to many machines (I don't have a list handy, but it
>includes the Amiga, so it must include everything else).

My guess is that PLPLOT cannot begin to do what IDL/PV-WAVE can in terms or
surface plots, color images, etc. What types of graphics devices does it
support?

>BTW, is it convenient to plot data quickly as it comes in (e.g.,
>point-by-point, or a few points at a time) with IDL, or do you have to
>redraw the whole plot to add a point?

It is easy to add new data point-by-point to an IDL plot. The OPLOT
(overplot) command puts new data on an existing plot. At NSLS I do real-time
2-D plots in IDL as each new data point comes in, and real-time 2-D images as
each new scan line comes in.

>I think tcl/tk wrapped around C code is neck and neck with IDL wrapped
>around C code: tcl/tk probably has the edge in widget support, while
>IDL has the edge in plotting support.

I was not suggesting IDL wrapped around C code. I am suggesting stand-alone
IDL code. That is why I want the specifications for what John is proposing to
code in C. I was suggesting that coding in IDL is much faster and easier than
in C, and the graphics are built in.

>One other thing tcl/tk does well is move all the way from
>(A) embedded language within largely unmodified monolithic application
>	to
>(B) interpreted application calling custom C routines.
>IDL does (B) very well, but I don't believe it helps you migrate from
>(A) to (B) in deliberate steps; you have to leap.

That is true, IDL cannot be embedded. However, if a 'new' application is going
to be produced, I think IDL is a serious candidate for at least the
prototyping phase.

Mark