Re: [AMBER-Developers] Experiences with sleap

From: Yong Duan <>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:31:47 -0800

If we distribute both leap and sleap, we have the obligation to ensure
that they both work. Plus, there is constant need to add new critical
functions when force field is developed. So, some minimum maintenance of
leap and sleap is required.

In the mean time, there is also the motivation to develop a
professional-grade model-building tool. We really do not have to limit to
one approach. Those of you who want to start from scratch, you are welcome
to start right now. Those who want to modernize leap/sleap, you are more
than welcome to do so too. These two goals are not in conflict in any way.
Rather, I see them as complementary.

But, more importantly, please act. Pick one approach that you like most
and start work on it. Nothing should prevent you from working on a project
that you feel so passionate about.


On 11/7/11 4:41 PM, "Wei Zhang" <> wrote:

>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

AMBER-Developers mailing list
Received on Mon Nov 07 2011 - 18:00:03 PST
Custom Search