Hi,
1.
On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 09:58:43AM -0400, case wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2011, Scott Brozell wrote:
> > Second, my opinion as a professional computer programmer was and is that
> > tleap needed to be thrown away and rewritten.
> For an contrarian view:
> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
This article states some industry folly, the likes of which
i have also seen first hand, but is Not on target for tleap IMHO.
2. There are many apt languages for rewriting: python works for me, but
I think C++ would be better: lends itself to an incremental approach since
we have a working C code, STL is similar to scripting languages,
we have a programmer that did rewrite it in C++.
3. Rewriting should have full support from the am dev community.
Apparently, we don't have it, so the odds of failure (again) are high.
I suggest that those PI's that think tleap is fine should be the ones to
maintain it and be tasked with extending it (this set includes at least Yong).
scott
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Sun Nov 06 2011 - 11:00:03 PST
