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

From: Rene Brun <>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:08:32 +0200

We will post an answer in due time to this thread. We are currently busy with our coming release 5.12

Rene Brun

Andy Buckley wrote:
> 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 - 14:08:39 MEST

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