A couple of points:
1) the parameter system certainly needs to do what ORAC-DR needs
2) we probably don't really want to redesign the whole parameter system from
scratch.
It sounds as if what Alan did is OK for now - but Al has the authority to
change things as necessary to fit in with ORAC-DR Web Services.
BTW: good idea about the document set
..David
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Malcolm J. Currie [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 05 March 2004 15:31
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: parameter system
>
> > The current parameter system with VPATH, PPATH, indirection and backups
> of
> > values in HDS files has, however, always seems more than was needed in
> most
> > cases!
>
> Brian's argument reminds me of certain professors who because they and
> their students didn't use Starlink software, PPARC should cut Starlink.
> While you may not use a particular feature, it may be important for
> someone else.
>
> Speaking both as a programmer and as an astronomer reducing data, I did
> use these facilities. Yes some made only guest appearances. Features
> like VPATH and PPATH, however, were used extensively in KAPPA. The only
> feature I can recall having doubts about, is the tie to HDS in parameter
> files (they're not backups and record current values). The HDS
> parameter files too often get corrupted.
>
> Yes the full scope of the parameter system can be daunting if you only
> programme occasionally, and a simple interface is better if that's all
> we ever did. For the beginner, wWe did offer overview programming
> documentation like SUN/101 and SC/12, and there is a user tutorial in
> SUN/95. Keywords ACCEPT, PROMPT, and RESET came from Figaro, and were
> added by *user demand*. Some users do read the documentation! Novice
> astronomer-programmers don't have to use the full power of the system.
> Yet IMHO it would be silly to restrict ourselves to a language that is
> popular with beginners. It's move to the lowest common denominator.
> I still want a full-featured parameter system.
>
> You're never going to reach all the users. One example: after years of
> pushing findme and showme, some respondents to the 1996 Questionnaire
> claimed that the Starlink documentation wasn't online. We do emphasize
> the good habits of removing AGI files and resetting parameters, but it's
> hard to reach some people.
>
> There may be an issue here for new postgrads and recent postdocs
> unfamiliar with Starlink, now that we don't issue paper manuals+, and
> we're in a limbo between Classic coding and Java. We could have a piece
> in a future Bulletin, reminding folks which documents are available if
> you want to programme in Classic Starlink. I'd expect we'd have an
> article on programming in Java, which references to introductory, lucid,
> and friendly documentation. (-:
>
> Malcolm
>
> + I think we should send one copy of printed copies of new, largely
> rewritten or massively expanded manuals to the major Starlink sites.
|