From: Axel Kohlmeyer (akohlmey_at_gmail.com)
Date: Mon Mar 07 2011 - 10:03:24 CST
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Ajasja LjubetiÄ
>> i would not expect a
>> windows version of a simulation software that is mostly
>> used on unix-like machines to be as thoroughly tested.
> Well, luckily, at least I'm testing it now, right?
> But since I an not restarting the simulation the file should not be renamed
> (or appended to) in the first place. The expectedÂ behaviorÂ would be that
> multiple run command inside the same configuration file just write to the
> same files.
that depends on how that is implemented.
> I would really like to see NAMD and VMD work well on windows, even though
> some people here might think it a waste of time.
you just volunteered yourself to take care of that. the problem is that
it is _so_ much additional work to make a code compatible with windows,
particularly if you do not routinely run on or even use windows.
unix-like machines are _so_ much more developer friendly.
for example, i am providing windows binaries for the LAMMPS variant
that i am maintaining, but i only do that because i am using a linux
to windows cross compiler and outside of issues that the compiler
detects, i don't do any checks. most of what i know about windows
"gotchas" is due to hacking VMD and getting a reminder
for any piece of code that wasn't compatible windows (often in
violation of c/c++ standards).
while i personally feel that i can be infinitely more productive on
a linux machine, i respect your choice to go a different way.
but for any (even partially) community supported software, that
also means that people like you will have to contribute some
effort to make your choice work well.
-- Dr. Axel Kohlmeyer akohlmey_at_gmail.com Â http://goo.gl/1wk0 Institute for Computational Molecular Science Temple University, Philadelphia PA, USA.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Mon Dec 31 2012 - 23:19:54 CST