Re: amber-developers: [ Re: AMBER: Installation amber 9 on IBM SP4]

From: Xuebin Qiao <>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:43:24 +0800

Maybe, it's wise to seperate the computational logic as well as building
processes of GUI-dependant and GUI independant codes at certain stage, just
like the branching of antechamber. If gleap is really based gtk+opengl (I
don't know exactly, cuz' I didn't see the codes) or something alike, its
portability and scalebility wouldn't be as good as other GUI-independant
computational codes.

On 8/25/06, David A. Case <> wrote:
> Scott Brozell wrote:
> > On a technical note for future Ambers using .F90 instead of .f90
> > would also avoid this issue if ibm supports the popular conventions
> > on uppercase extensions indicating preprocessing.
> But this leaves us to the whims of Fortran compiler implementors, and
> "popular
> conventions" are likely to fail with the next whiz-bang update from PGI
> (or
> whoever). I'd rather have the Makefile do the work here.
> ....dac

... there have been two really clean,
consistent models of programming so far:
the C model and the Lisp model.
These two seem points of high ground,
with swampy lowlands between them.
                                      --Paul Graham
Received on Sun Aug 27 2006 - 06:07:31 PDT
Custom Search