Hi Kevin, thanks for your kind words about our project. Kevin Jacobs wrote: > > Hello ROOT users; > > First of all I would like to congratulate both the developers and the > users for making a rather impressive application framework. It is in many > ways significantly better than anything I have seen to date for scientific > applications. > > My applications involve large scale genetic data analysis. We have our > own mini-application framework and OO library base already, but I would like > to evaluate ROOT as a possible extension. > > My questions: > > 1) What is the distribution policy for ROOT? Some of our applications > are commercially distributed (as per requirements of some of our > grants). They are substantially discounted (up to 75%) for academic > users and all but the source code is available to the users (all > algorithms, etc.) > The current version of ROOT can be distributed freely as long as proper credit is given and copyright notices are maintained. Later versions of ROOT might become part of the CERN program library in which case the CERN library policy will probably apply (which up till now has only been covering distribution costs). Since the CERN management has not yet decided what the final policy concerning ROOT will we have to be quite vague on this subject. But for now, please go ahead and use the current version. > > 2) Do the ROOT developers accept "contributed" code. If we use it then I > am sure enhancements, fixes and new functionality will be added > in-house, but it is always nice when they can be officially supported > so as to provide a more stable environment. Of course this is subject > to case-by-case approval by the developers, but some projects are more > responsive to this more than others. > Yes, we are very happy to accept relevant contributed code and will treat it as a proper part of the system, i.e. it will be maintained like the rest of the system. > > 3) Have there been any benchmarks relating non-application framework > programs to ROOT ported ones? On the ROOT web site there are several > tables, but none seem to provide an idea of the performance hit > endured by programs that use ROOT. (Please do not tell me that ROOT > makes special purpose software faster-- the only time this happens is > when the original program is shoddily written). > We are not yet aware of any benchmarks comparing ROOT with non-framework code. However, speaking for ourselves, as being the authors of very special pupose histogramming packages, written in FORTRAN, and optimized for millions of entries. We see that the ROOT histogramming sub-system is considerably faster (up to 2 times) than the special purpose built FORTRAN version. Not because the FORTRAN version was "shoddily" written but because C/C++ allowed us much more efficient data structure handling. Probably better would be a comparison with a stand-alone special purpose C/C++ histogramming package to see what the overhead would be. The only major form of overhead we see is the usage of virtual methods which typically cause one extra memory dereference. > > 4) I would be interested to know if there are other genetic analysis, > statistical analysis, or molecular biology applications using ROOT. > Since January more than 3000 copies of the system have been downloaded from the ROOT web site. Only a fraction of the people downloading the system have "officially" registered. Currently the main usage is in the fields of high energy physics, nuclear physics, chemistry, climate studies, data aquisition, finacial and medical. We have seen a number of downloads from machines with the name "genetic" in it, but we are not yet aware of any projects in your field using the system. > > If your comments are of general interest please reply to the mailing list; if > they are of a more specific nature please reply to me directly. > > Many thanks, > Kevin Jacobs > Regards, Rene brun & Fons Rademakers.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 04 2000 - 00:26:19 MET