Subject: Re: CCL:Java and other WWW developments

From: [email-masked] (Konrad HINSEN)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 11:16:26 -0400

> Paul Weber writes
> 
> >A common vision is to think of the Browser as the new desktop, or GUI to
> >your work.   You might, in the not too distant future, get a chemistry
> >version of "plug and play" where a molecule sketched in a Tripos applet is
> >used to pull out compounds from an MDL database, some of which are then
> >minimized using the Merck FF, all on the same page (which could then be
> >stored or "registered" as a notebook page that could be searched later).

I don't quite see why such a level of interoperability should suddenly
become possible. If vendors had wanted this to happen, it could have
happened long ago. It is mainly marketing strategy, not technical
problems, that has brought us incompatibilities.

> The Web as a new operating system metaphor is also the objective of the
> X-Window consortium, and perhaps even  Apple OpenDoc/Cyberdog.

Probably because they see it as the only way to break Microsoft's
monopoly on conventional operating systems and office software. Again
marketing strategy. Not that I oppose it, but it should be clear what
the real motivations are. If the goal was to create an open GUI/API
for interoperable small applications, then from a purely technical
point of view a Web browser is far from optimal.

> >I think that it is a good time for the community to search for acceptable
> >standards, such as SGI's Molecular Inventor, Tripos's SLN, DayLight's
> >SMILES, or the PDB (yuck). The chemistry community could then promote the

Let's stress "community" and "search".  The more typical scenario in
the computer business is that the first system/format/whatever on the
market that is good enough becomes a de-facto standard, even if its
limitations are already predictable.  This has brought us the
dominance of Fortran, the IBM PC architecture, Windows, PDB as a
general chemical file format, and other "standards" that now force
many developers to waste countless hours with outdated technology.

And it seems we have not learned anything from these examples. Instead
of searching for the best way to create a system of small
interoperable applets by carefully evaluating the existing proposals
and implementations, with the goal of creating a better one, we all
jump on the Java bandwagon as if it was the road to salvation. In
fact, Java might have set a new record by being the first system
widely hailed as the next standard before it was even available to the
general public! Even now there is very little practical experience
with non-trivial Java applications.

Instead we should be gathering experience and analyzing what is good
and bad about Java and other approaches to integrating software
building blocks (i.e. other modular interpreted languages such as
Perl, Python, and Tcl, multi-language integration approaches such as
CORBA or the GNU Guile project, data interchange standards such
as CDF, etc.). After a year or two, we could then make an informed
decision about standards, instead of a rushed agreement on something
that might turn out to be the next stumbling block to progress.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Konrad Hinsen                     | E-Mail: [email-masked]
Departement de chimie             | Tel.: +1-514-343-6111 ext. 3953
Universite de Montreal            | Fax:  +1-514-343-7586
C.P. 6128, succ. Centre-Ville     | Deutsch/Esperanto/English/Nederlands/
Montreal (QC) H3C 3J7             | Francais (phase experimentale)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Craig Taverner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 18:52:07 +0200 (GMT+0200)

To everyone discussing the Java and WWW developments issue

This whole discussion is clearly something that the chemical community    
needs to (and apparently wants to) discuss in detail.  Since it is not    
what is usually discussed in the CCL list, I wonder whether we should
consider having an alternative list service to discuss this topic itself.

I personally am finding it very interesting and am completely happy with 
it on the CCL, but am worried that there may be many who would like the 
CCL to stick to CC, and cause this discussion to die.  From the 
discussion so far, I gather that there is reason to believe that it 
should definitely continue.

Should it be moved to a new list, another list, or just stay right here 
at CCL?

Cheers, Craig

"Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the
 usual way.  This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody
 thinks of complaining."
                -- Jeff Raskin, interviewed in Doctor Dobb's Journal

Craig Taverner
Structural Chemistry, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa
tel:   +27-11-716-2290                fax: +27-11-716-3826
email: [email-masked]
www:   http://www.gh.wits.ac.za/craig