From owner-chemistry -A_T- ccl.net Mon Oct 17 12:05:00 2005
From: "Noel O Boyle no228*o*cam.ac.uk" <owner-chemistry:-:server.ccl.net>
To: CCL
Subject: CCL: Where can you publish articles on software?
Message-Id: <-29631-051017113422-13476-lzOJtoF4iRhZqf0/fNliOA:-:server.ccl.net>
X-Original-From: "Noel O'Boyle" <no228- -cam.ac.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:34:12 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0


Sent to CCL by: "Noel O'Boyle" [no228{}cam.ac.uk]
On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 06:57 -0700, Steve Bowlus
chezbowlus[*]goldrush.com wrote:
> Sent to CCL by: Steve Bowlus [chezbowlus_+_goldrush.com]
> $0.02 from a (grateful) enduser (who can't spell "C") of everyone else's 
> code:
> 
> At one time, the CompChem community had its own vehicle for this 
> purpose.  It was (and still is) called the "Quantum Chemistry Program 
> Exchange."  For nominal cost (basically then media costs), academics and 
> industry could get access to cutting edge programming.

Things have improved in this regard since the 80s. The facilities
provided by open-source repositories such as SourceForge
(http://www.sf.net) are light-years beyond simple
dump-it-and-leave-it-there type repositories. For example, SourceForge
provides, for each program, a web site, a CVS repository (this is for
coordinated the work of several developers), mailing lists, forums, bug
trackers and feature requests. Whether one uses these or not is up to
the individual developer(s). And it's cheaper than the QCPE - it's free
for users *and* developers!

>   As QCPE matured 
> in the mid- to late '80's, there was published (again, at modest cost) 
> the quarterly "QCPE Bulletin," in which contributors could (as my memory 
> serves me) publish exactly the kind of information being debated in this 
> thread.  Descriptions of new contributions were made in every issue by 
> the director/editor (Richard Counts/Peggy Edwards).  A uniform mechanism 
> was provided for citation of contributions.

Anything that provides a mechanism for developers to tell users about
their software, as well as providing an encouragement for people to
share code openly, sounds good to me. I would prefer though a more
formal publication procedure with a peer review process, examples of
which have been mentioned in both Physics and Bioinformatics. Dropping
the Q in QCPE might also be a good idea; and it would encourage people
to share code in the wider chemistry community.

Regards,
Noel