On 7/11/2011, at 2:54 p.m., David A Case wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2011, Ben Roberts wrote:
>>
>> So then, what (if anything) is to be done, and who's to do it? That
>> seems to me to be the crucial question. Do we try to answer it on the
>> list, or wait until January?
>
> Seems to me Yong is doing it...
Fair enough, then. I guess I'd seen a lot of traffic, which I mentally summed up as follows, perhaps wrongly: tleap is broken, sleap is broken, and yet we're going to stick with the current mess.
If tleap is not broken, and people are happy to tinker with/add functionality to it, then so be it. As I think I intimated before, I believe it would be better off converted to an OO language, but I dare say that's an "aspirational goal".
But what I chiefly wanted to get at was a decision: to
(a) maintain tleap,
(b) maintain sleap,
(c) maintain both sleap and tleap,
(d) start something new, or
(e) stop bringing up their shortcomings.
I guess we're looking at (a); in which case, what things does sleap do well that tleap does not, so we can incorporate those into tleap? Or do we just advise users that for a certain subset of features sleap is the preferred option?
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Mon Nov 07 2011 - 12:30:05 PST
