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

From: Andy Buckley <>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 10:57:15 +0100

Federico Carminati wrote:
> Thanks Bertrand for this,
> I wanted to stay out of this argument. We had a lot of this inside
> CERN, and, as you correctly point out, its main feature was sterility.

Again, the point was not an abstract, unfocused discussion but an attempt to enhance the ROOT Wikipedia page. Not the most important thing in the world, but as the criticism includes *technical* points that maybe aren't often discussed around ROOT, I thought I should try to justify myself. Sorry that it took so long but there's a lot to say!

So does anyone have any *technical* responses to the criticisms, primarily those on the Wikipedia page, that I've made?

> It is perhaps the best tribute to ROOT that it has become THE
> reference application for HEP worldwide. Is it perfect? Look around you
> and tell me how many perfect software products you see. But it does the
> job jolly well and the ROOT team has maintained all its enthusiasm and
> dedication to work with ROOT users to meet their requirements.

So, the fact that ROOT is now important and has a wide user base means that its architecture cannot be discussed? I'm here, reeling out a list of problems specifically *because* ROOT has a wide user base and because getting it right *is* important.

Sadly, no developers have yet addressed any of the technical criticisms that I've presented. Surely not so busy that they can't leap to the (accurate and technical) defence of their own product?

Andy Received on Fri Jun 30 2006 - 11:57:27 MEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jan 01 2007 - 16:31:59 MET