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

Hello Bertrand,

> Please give me an example of application with a nice GUI
> made with Qt.
> (I'm serious here,

 Really?

I am not sure what your "nice" stands for and how this is related to "ROOT criticism".

> ( this is for my personal interest.)

Ok, the first example is "RootShower" (There is a version with Qt interface) written by Bertrand Bellenot. I really like that application neat GUI design.

I am serious.

There are others:

http://www.kde.org/screenshots/ 
http://www.kde.org/screenshots/kde350shots.php 
http://artis.imag.fr/Members/Gilles.Debunne/QGLViewer/index.html 

 . . .

Best regards, Valeri Fine

>
> 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 - 20:53:03 MEST