Posted by
ctrueden on
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/reliability-of-macros-tp3700932p3700933.html
Hi Paul,
I'm not sure what you are looking for here. Statistics like "macros
are 90% reliable" are vague and essentially meaningless. If you want
assurances that the macro language does not contain bugs, of course
that cannot be guaranteed, but know that many people use macros every
day with very good results. They typically execute as expected, and in
general are very robust.
And if there are specific bugs, the ImageJ community is both extremely
active, and led by a very talented and responsive developer who
releases new versions on a rapid development cycle, so you can feel
confident that bugs in the macro language will be fixed very quickly.
I think the biggest gotcha for new ImageJ macro programmers is that
the macro recorder does not always record every action taken (for
example, recording brightness/contrast adjustments does not work as
expected). But there is quite a bit of documentation about the macro
language on the web site to assist with puzzling things out, and if
that's not enough there's always the mailing list.
What more do you want?
-Curtis
On 11/28/06, Paul Batty <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> G'day folks,
>
> I was just wondering how reliable are macros? I know this was touched upon in previous listings saying that they are very reliable, but no-one has explicitly given a figure - 90%? 99%??? I have never seen anything in the literature stating anything, yet everyone uses them! surely there must be some source of error - nothing can really be perfect, or can it.......
>
> can anyone 'put this one to bed'
>
> Regards
>
> Paul.
>