http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/reliability-of-macros-tp3700932p3700934.html
detect, for example), (c) the actual implementation of the method. I
provide (correct?). See
for a discussion on numerical methods in Java.
image, "every time". Is that what you mean by reliability? How well
that you will have to figure out by testing the macro.
>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.