Re: [Fwd: Re: Wikipedia criticism about root]

Julius Hrivnac wrote:

>> PS. Myself and cstrato seem to have assumed the twin roles of Chief
>> Arguer here. I think it would be of benefit if others --- including
>> some of those who've mailed me personally with supportive messages and
>> the main ROOT developers, who presumably (I hope!) have opinions on
>> these issues --- can add to the debate. Otherwise this whole affair is
>> a waste of words... a fact which I suspect is not lost on the more
>> prominent silent parties ;-)

> 
> Many people have spend already a lot of time in arguments about Root
> problems. I certainly did, Guy Barrand did, FreeHEP team did,...
> People working in LHC experiments (as I do) are very well aware of
> serious Root problems, but:
> - don't have time to discuss them because they have to fix them
> - are discouraged by the fact that no serious discussion about Root
>   alternatives is allowed in LCG/AA (CERN official LHC software project)

Thanks for the comments. This explanation is entirely in keeping with my understanding of the situation. Does anyone else have any comments on this?

I'm glad that bug fixes are being fed back into ROOT rather than fixed "locally" on a per-user or per-experiment basis. At least I hope that's what's happening! :) There are certain "bugs", however, like the class design, UI etc. that cannot be fixed by outside parties: those will require a design and development effort, at least by the core team who (by definition) do have the time to work on it.

Andy Received on Thu Jun 29 2006 - 23:57:57 MEST