Subject: Anybody agrees with me?

From: Renxiao Wang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 15:43:05 -0800 (PST)

Dear CCLers,

Have you got tired of learning how to use a new molecular modeling
software? I have. 

Of course if a certain software can cover all the aspects of your research
and you always stick to it, you will not complain like me. If so, you are
lucky! But if you have to apply multiple softwares to your work, you will
always waste time on something rather than science. For instance, if you
want to rotate a bond of your molecule in a certain way by using a
software that you are not familiar with, you probably have to search all
the menus and buttons, or even worse, go through piles of manuals to
finally make it. 

Maybe you will argue that every software has its own advantages and
disadvantages. I agree. But this should not be the reason why those
softwares are so different in interface! I have experience in using quite
many molecular modeling softwares, such as QUANTA, Cerius2, InsightII,
Sybyl, Spartan, and MacroModel, no speaking of other "simpler" programs,
such as RasMol, Molgen, and etc. In my personal view, Spartan is the most
user-friendly, Biosym's products are generally very complicated, while
MacroModel is the worst in worst.

Actually these softwares overlap each other considerably. I just cannot
help wondering why the guys who develop these molecular modeling softwares
have not met together and defined a "standard". This standard could be a
uniformed but expandable interface or framework, which at least covers all
the "basic" elements of molecular modeling that have already been
well-established (such as how to manipulate the molecule, how to color and
display the molecule, how to perform minimization, MC and MD, and etc). I
am sure there is no technical problem to do so. 

Take the computer industry as an example. If they had not had such a
standard at the very beginning (proposed by IBM, right?), maybe today we
are using dozens of different style computers. That would be a chao! Take
MicroSoft as another example. Although they make too much money, :-) they
have done an excellent job to help "unifying" the interface of most
current softwares. Therefore a software seems less confusing when we try
to use it for the first time. 

So if such a "standard" for molecular modeling programs does exist, it is
good for the users, because they will complain less; it is also good for
the programmers, because they will be able to concentrate on developing
new algorithms rather than re-inventing the wheel; and I believe it is
also good for the sellers, because the molecular modeling softwares can
become more popular in this way.

Any comment?

Best wishes,

------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dr. Renxiao Wang                                                     | 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry | 3281 Sawtelle Blvd. #104  | 
| University of California Los Angeles     | Los Angeles, CA90066      | 
| Los Angeles, CA 90024                    | U.S.A                     | 
| Phone: 310-8250269 (Lab)                 | Phone: 310-3904638 (Home) | 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| E-mail: [email-masked]                                        | 
| WWW: http://zimbu.chem.ucla.edu/~arthur/                             |
------------------------------------------------------------------------