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

Hi,
sorry for deviation of discussion from initial topic - "Wikipedia criticism about root".

Andrey Stepin wrote:

>I do believe that CPU speed improvement closes gap between being
>interpreted and compiled. I'm working in some big software company, and
>what I learned from customers is that they need some kind of
>metalanguage. At the best this metalanguage need to contain one
>instruction like
>OutputData=doRightJob(InputData)

BTW, C++ is a perfect language for creation of such "meta-language".

Just create a class with constructor :)
MyClassDoesRightJob::MyClassDoesRightJob(InputData)

>Recent success with Tcl shows it clearly. It is better to debug
>10-string script than 100-line C++ program with all that overhead
>(inheritance, incapsulation, templates etc).

Sure, "it's better", and it IS a good practice in C++ to hide "100-line C++ code" inside a class internals (btw, that is called "incapsulation").

>And no kind of ACLiC can save the world here for ROOT.

ACLiC was mentioned in context - it can save ROOT/CINT from accusations from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROOT

"This can be unstable and encourages programs to be written in ill-defined non-ANSI compliant C++"

My main idea of my previous message was -

1. the current CINT limitations are temporary and can be "overcomed" in future with using "precompile technique".
2. Removing CINT from ROOT is "flushing child with a water". People who argues to stop CINT development - wants to "kill it", instead of to help to improve it.
3. C++ interpreter has a right for existence. It is outstanding and very perspective intepreter. This is not "a local", i.e. entirely ROOT development, but can have an influence on the future development of C++ language itself.

Regards. Valeriy

++
 In http://openscientist.lal.in2p3.fr/v15r0/html/osc_hep.html

AndyBuckley wrote:
"
We ask then publicly for a review of ROOT done by non HEP people of the open source having done something significant in OO. And this review should happen before the retirment of some of the main authors. We propose a review done by : Richard Stallman (GNU), Linus Torvalds (Linux), Bjarne Stroustrup (C++), Guido van Rosum (Python), someone from SUN having participated to the design of java, Josie Wernecke of the Open Inventor Architecture Group and the man having done MySQL. Obviously, we can't have someone from Microsoft since nobody had seen the sources of Windows.

If these people arrive to the conclusion that ROOT is a breakthrough of humankind in scientific software, the author is ready to shutup about it up to its retirment."

Personally I "believe" that CINT development is that "... a breakthrough of humankind in scientific software .."         

Thanks. Regards. Valeriy Received on Thu Jul 06 2006 - 07:59:38 MEST