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

Danek Kotlinski wrote:

> Most of us have no time for theoretical discussions about software
> design but want to use a tool which allows us to obtain results.
>
> ROOT, despite many problems, does it for us.

I have no opposition to ROOT as the primary analysis tool. Strange though it may seem, I'm on your side: I just happen to want those "many problems" identified and fixed.

Browsing the list archives, a huge number of mails are about difficulties in obtaining results which would probably not have been issues had the design been better. If the design problems are fixed, then everyone benefits and ROOT can be used to obtain results even more efficiently.

The politics of the thing are irrelevant, but with the prevalence of software in modern HEP work, to claim that we're "too busy" to do "theoretical" things like design our most significant frameworks is akin to saying that we don't care if the bulk of our work is done badly as long as we get numbers out at the end. Without a clear design and robust implementation, I don't know how far I can trust any numbers I produce with ROOT.

Andy

-- 
Andy Buckley: CEDAR @ IPPP, Durham
Work: www.cedar.ac.uk
www.insectnation.org