Subject: Re: CCL:Java and other WWW developments

From: Craig Taverner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 17:48:12 +0200 (GMT+0200)

On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, Konrad HINSEN wrote:
> 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.

I agree to some extent.  It seems to me that what has happened here is 
that business and chemistry (and anyone else with a sudden interest) 
didn't go out to try and develope these new interoperability features, 
and could have done so a while ago if they had wanted to.  Instead the 
WWW/HTML/CGI/Java developements were developed for other reasons entirely 
(mostly global information systems), and now that everyone has suddenly 
realised that the technology makes it remarkably easy for very small-time 
developers to start doing powerful interoperability networking that the 
big-boys didn't want to do, the major players may be forced to follow the 
trend just to make sure that they don't suddenly loose half their market.

> 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 many of the comments that have been made with regard to this 
subject by a variety of people have been valid.  One problem, a failing 
of which I am also guilty, is that we, as chemists, are not really in a 
position to try and modify the real direction that this new technology is 
going.  I also agree that we may not yet be in a position to make the 
most of it, but do believe that the work that is being done by several 
chemists and chemical software manufacturers is not at all a waste, and 
will certainly contribute to what is finially perduced when things settle 
down.

> 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.

We are definitely being forced to follow trends set by others.  However, 
how we deal with this is a complicated concern in my opinion.  Since 
those that are the first to get something working are also the ones to 
set the standards (with the exception of the very powerful, like 
microsoft, who have the leverage to break some standards, unfortunately 
not usually for our better) we really should be careful how we find a 
good balance between rushing in a setting wrong standards, and consulting 
too long and ending up having someone else set the chemical standards for 
us.  We do have to be quick about it, but somehow make sure we don't 
stuff it up.

> 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.

Java is going to have to prove itself.  Right now everyone is going made 
about possibilities, but when you look at what Java is capable of with 
graphics and chemical applications, the enthusiasm is justified.  I 
expect, however, that many are going to get there finger burned on this 
one before Java finally finds a strong place in chemistry.

> decision about standards, instead of a rushed agreement on something
> that might turn out to be the next stumbling block to progress.

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.

Cheer, 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

---

From: [email-masked] (Konrad HINSEN)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 13:18:52 -0400

> We are definitely being forced to follow trends set by others.  However, 

No, we choose to follow these trends because that is the way of least
immediate effort. And computational scientists do sometimes deviate
from mass-market trends when these are unsuitable; for example, most
of us use Unix machines instead of Windows-boxes for computational
work. For reasons of economy we will have to base our efforts on
fundamental technology developed elsewhere, but when it comes to our
specific needs (including e.g. chemistry-related Web applets), we can
very well choose not to follow the mass-market trends.

> graphics and chemical applications, the enthusiasm is justified.  I 

Enthusiasm about the possibilities, yes. But that's something else than
talking about a "new standard" and unavoidable developments that we
just have to follow.

One of the problems with Java is, for example, that is not really
free.  To make the most of Java applets (or even just classes), it
would be necessary to be able to integrate them with other code, which
is not necessarily Web-related. But this requires licensing the rather
expensive byte-code interpreter from Sun, which is a prohibitive cost
for small developers, including academic groups. A real standard for
computational science should be fully available to everyone at an
acceptable, preferably zero, cost.

> consider having an alternative list service to discuss this topic itself.

I don't care much. 90% of what is posted to CCL doesn't interest me, but
I have learned to ignore and discard that quickly. I'd rather have such
discussions here than join yet another mailing list.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------