Root interactive using. was: RE: Response to ROOT criticism?

Hi,

> Andy Buckley wrote:

>Yes, it would but no-one else in the world needs it to
do so, because
>no-one else tries to interpret C++. Because that's not
what it's
>designed for. And this is exactly why I hardly ever use
ROOT interactively.

I partially agree with it.
Even with having TAB-completion mechanism in ROOT 
many people/users have "nostalgia" about the
shortest as possible commands
and pretty good online help of KUIP/PAW.
In general, it's possible to revitalize KUIP inside
CINT/ROOT because most
of the PAW commands can be easily "translated"
into ROOT ones.

Why not to "convert opportunistic enthutsiasm"
into creativity 

Regards. Valeriy

Andy,

> If I wanted scriptable use, I'd probably write a
Python wrapper using 
> Boost.Python.

the unfortunate bit is that, even though there are major
shortcomings and
missing functionality, development on boost.python has
stopped back in 2003.

> To imply that (ROOT) dictionaries are the *only* way is
a misrepresentation.

A lot of effort has been put in different ways of providing
bindings, with
three main branches, so it is possible to make a
well-founded comparison. As
is, the dictionary based approach wins hands down in terms
of performance,
functionality, and ease of use. No, it's not the only way,
but, short of FFI,
it's the best way.

Best regards,
           Wim
--
Wim.Lavrijsencern.ch   --   WLavrijsenlbl.gov  
--   www.lavrijsen.net

"Stop making excuses for your software."   
--first step towards quality
   "GIGO is not a valid design pattern."        
--corollary