Paul Smith wrote:
2) ditch all gui support or, from scratch, develop a gui front-end that uses
none of the following: Qt, Ruby, Perl, Python, TK/TCl, etc. This gui must
compile and run on all mainstream hardware on all major operating systems. The
custom gui might also need a custom driver for maximizing the capabilities of
modern GPU's for 3D work, but shouldn't make use of any existing
shading/tiling/rendering methods (like openGL).
I know you were joking, but I'm all in favor of dropping gui's for tasks
that don't involve dealing with graphical data (models, maps or
diffraction images). It's usually faster to learn new software with a
gui; but it often seems to result in users not reading the documentation
- which may contribute to newcomers to crystallography using software to
produce structures without understanding what the magical black box is
doing (aka the clickey-button effect; which seems to pop up every time
there's a discussion of a retracted paper/problematic structure).
But I don't have a slide rule, so my opinion on these matters may be
invalid.
Pete
3) scratch all binary formats (mtz,ccp4map,etc.) due to interoperability
issues/dependencies. Everything in flat text (if you like, all variables can
have four letters and can be followed by a flag/switch consisting of an integer
or two, perhaps negative, to control software behavior).
4) abandon rapid software development afforded by modular, object oriented
programming.
Sounds good to me.
Seriously however, I do like how well-coded monolithic executables simply work
once compiled without fuss. I also like the speed and power afforded by using
a well thought out toolkit of practical modules, a la PHENIX. I guess I can't
have it all. Personally, if you really need windows, I second the idea of a VM
running a linux environment. It's vastly simpler to install mature linux
binaries within a VM then fight to get all of modern crystallographic software
to run under windows. Even better, the other way around -- run linux native
and windows in a VM.
For the record:
Shelx is awesome
Fortran is a perfectly good programming language
I keep a slide rule in my desk.
--Paul
Paul Smith, Ph.D. -- [email protected]
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
- New York Institute of Technology
- www.paladinscientific.com
--- On Mon, 8/29/11, George M. Sheldrick <[email protected]> wrote:
From: George M. Sheldrick <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Windows 7 and Xtal Software
To: [email protected]
Date: Monday, August 29, 2011, 3:12 PM
It is simply a result of the 'zero
dependency' philosophy. In other words, the
exact opposite of current trends in crystallographic
computing (e.g. Phenix/CCTBX).
George
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:39:16PM -0500, Jacob Keller
wrote:
You know, why does your software always seem so clean?
Was it
something about the punch cards?
Jacob
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:29 PM, George M. Sheldrick
<[email protected]>
wrote:
The current SHELX binaries (including the
beta-test multi-CPU SHELXD) all
appear to run fine under Windows 7. There is no
need to use a virtual box etc.
George
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:53:05PM -0700, Nat
Echols wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Jacob Keller
<[email protected]>
wrote:
are there any additional problems or
known issues running ccp4 or
other xtal software on windows 7
(beyond those of Vista, etc.?)
Phenix, ARP/wARP, and HKL2000 do not run on
Windows. I'm pretty sure none of
Global Phasing's software does either (aside
from web interfaces).
-Nat
--
Prof. George M. Sheldrick FRS
Dept. Structural Chemistry,
University of Goettingen,
Tammannstr. 4,
D37077 Goettingen, Germany
Tel. +49-551-39-3021 or -3068
Fax. +49-551-39-22582
--
*******************************************
Jacob Pearson Keller
Northwestern University
Medical Scientist Training Program
cel: 773.608.9185
email: [email protected]
*******************************************
--
Prof. George M. Sheldrick FRS
Dept. Structural Chemistry,
University of Goettingen,
Tammannstr. 4,
D37077 Goettingen, Germany
Tel. +49-551-39-3021 or -3068
Fax. +49-551-39-22582
