[AMBER-Developers] Ross' comments about mdgx

From: case <case.biomaps.rutgers.edu>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 22:40:33 -0400

On Thu, Nov 03, 2011, Ross Walker wrote:
> The same goes for things like cpptraj and mdgx etc. Why are we continually
> reinventing things? We should be forcing people to fix the existing code not
> going off and writing their own version in their own favorite language which
> nobody can maintain etc etc. Take mdgx. Is the intention here to make
> another dynamics engine that we need to maintain?

I encourage everyone to (re-)read Section 11.1 of the AmberTools Users'
Manual, particularly the sentence containing the phrase "...the principal
purpose of the MDGX program is...." This addresses Ross' complaints
(which I won't repeat here.)


AMBER-Developers mailing list
Received on Thu Nov 03 2011 - 20:00:02 PDT
Custom Search