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

From: Bertrand Bellenot <bertrand.bellenot_at_cern.ch>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:32:35 +0200


Hi Julius,

 > 1) Root does everything just well enough. For almost all components, there
 > is a better alternative (OpenInventor for 3D, Qt for GUI, HDF5 for Qt for GUI ? Please give me an example of application with a nice GUI made with Qt.
(I'm serious here, this is for my personal interest.)

Cheers,
Bertrand.

Julius Hrivnac wrote:
> Federico Carminati wrote:
> > I would like to point out that they have only two alternative
> explanations
> > to the present situation. Either they are more clever than us all, but
> > so much more that we did not even understand what they were saying, or
> > they have been silenced. The second explanation may be reassuring
> for them,
> > but is false ...
>
> Well, I've mentioned several cases where other solutions have been
> silenced,
> often in a quite arrogant way. Alternative presentations are not allowed,
> and people have been even forced to remove their software from the
> repository
> because it didn't follow "the official party line". [And the fact that
> Root
> itself has suffered from that treatment before doesn't justify it !]
>
> So why were Root sirens so successful ? I see several reasons for that:
> 1) Root does everything just well enough. For almost all components,
> there
> is a better alternative (OpenInventor for 3D, Qt for GUI, HDF5 for
> files, Doxygen for documentation, almost all AIDA implementations
> for histograms,...), but there is no other place where all those
> things
> are ready-to-be-used in one package.
> [This is, however, very frustrating for some developers, who
> provide better alternatives and can't get them accepted because they
> "don't work well with Root" - for reasons technical or political.]
> After the collapse of LHC++, users were happy with just any tool which
> at least worked - what difference it made to have it. And Root was
> certainly best placed to satisfy that.
> 2) Root is easy to install and works everywhere. User just downloads a
> tar file
> (actually not so big), untars it and it runs. With most other HEP
> packages,
> a user should go through a calvaric process of downloading
> gigabytes of
> stuff (and you never know what exactly you have to get), learning
> obscure management systems, setting up all environment variables
> and configuration files, ..., to finally find out that she has a bad
> luck because she is using a slightly different version of GCC
> or Linux kernel.
> 3) Root is easy to use (as long as you don't want to do funny
> C++ tricks). Ideal for a beginner (so for most of us). Less useful,
> however, if you want to use real OO with Abstract Interfaces,... or
> advanced C++ techniques. Using third-party packages is often a
> problem too
> (but you don't need them in Root, do you ? :-).
> 4) Root offers known look&feel - that of PAW - with bigger functionality.
> So the migration is (was) easy.
> 5) Root user support is (was) excellent. The answer to any bug report /
> feature request usually came within minutes, the fix/implementation
> within hours. With all other packages, user has to wait sometimes week
> even to get any response at all.
>
> [Just note that technical points - i.e. 1,2,3 - are satisfied by Java
> much better. Which is certainly not surprising as Root is in many
> respects just a naive reimplementation of Java (Java itself is
> implemented is C++).]
>
> Julius
Received on Fri Jun 30 2006 - 20:32:35 MEST

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