<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Thomas K Hemmick <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hemmick@skipper.physics.sunysb.edu" target="_blank">hemmick@skipper.physics.sunysb.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Thanks Ole, that explains A LOT of what people have not yet said. Two questions:
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A: Without root, what would we use? PAW...home grown...? </div>
<div>B: Without C++ what would we use? FORTRAN...perl...python...?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As you might have guessed, I have operated under the presumption of a root/geant4 code base. It seems to me that any other choice is more work for the core team than I care to think about in my worst nightmare!<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1) Does anyone among us believe that we have the capability to write our own root or geant4?</div>
<div>2) Among those who believe item 1, do you think that we are wise to do this?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Perhaps this is first thing we should discuss. My opinion is simple: root/geant4 should be the basis of SoLID software. I'm curious to hear if any of us has a different opinion on this.</div>
<div></div></div></blockquote></div><br>I don't think there are any advocates of not using GEANT4 for simulation, are there?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Am I correct in understanding major portions of the Hall B framework (but not all their software) are written in Java?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I have never learned Java, and have in the past decade or so used only C++, Perl, and Python, so personally have a very strong preference for a C++ based framework. </div><div class="gmail_extra"></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">As for ROOT, I certainly think we can write a simulation package that doesn't use it. Digitization as well, I think, and probably reconstruction. For analysis, on the other hand, I see it as essential. But as long as the ROOT toolkit is available in the analyzer, I guess I can see that the entire framework does not need to be built around ROOT. </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">But if ROOT gives us tools that will make it easier to attain our requirements, that certainly argues strongly in its favor.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I think it's premature to advocate for any one or another framework. First we need to get a clear picture of our requirements, and of the available alternatives.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">- Richard S. Holmes<br> Physics Department<br> Syracuse University<br> Syracuse, NY 13244<br> 315-443-5977<br></div>
</div></div>