Hi, A short followup: Pasha Murat (630)840-8237@169G writes: > It is true that some of the KUIP commands are shorter than C++ statements - > this is always the case when you compare a command language and a programming > language. Yes, attaching the file takes less keyboard hits with PAW than with > ROOT. Keep in mind that one starts seeing the real advantages of ROOT only when > you come to more complicated analysis-oriented things: having interpreted > language being the same as the compiled language starts paying off only at > that stage and it really is a great deal. Well, this is not the way it's sold in the community. The way it is sold is that there are no disadvantages to ROOT, only advantages. I just did a GOOGLE search on 'root paw disadvantages' and came up with two (relevant) hits. a similar search on 'root paw advantages' came up with many more hits. I also did not use PAW for complicated stuff. I had a little language for which I had written a compiler in Python; the output of the compiler was a CERNLIB/Fortran mix. The result was that programming of complex analyses was much EASIER than in paw, and the analysis itself was also faster. I believe "easier and faster" is the proper direction in which to move. > I'd strongly suggest you to go through the ROOT HowTo's and Tutorials - if you > know Python and are used to SWIG it should be quite easy for you to figure how > to use ROOT/CINT properly. done so. the information there was used to generate the code which I attached in the email from yesterday. JT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 11:50:18 MET