Hi Ben,
The best way I can think of is: maintain tleap, and try to add things that sleap does better
then tleap. That seems to be the most managable solution.
Sincerely,
Wei
On Nov 7, 2011, at 2:17 PM, Ben Roberts wrote:
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Mon Nov 07 2011 - 17:00:03 PST
