From chemistry-request #at# server.ccl.net Wed Feb 9 19:41:10 2000 Received: from neon.chem.ucla.edu (neon.chem.ucla.edu [128.97.35.251]) by server.ccl.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA16300 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 19:41:09 -0500 Received: from localhost (renxiao $#at#$ localhost) by neon.chem.ucla.edu (8.8.0/8.8.0) with SMTP id PAA20791 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2000 15:43:05 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: neon.chem.ucla.edu: renxiao owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 15:43:05 -0800 (PST) From: Renxiao Wang Reply-To: Renxiao Wang To: Computational Chemistry List Subject: Anybody agrees with me? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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: renxiao $#at#$ chem.ucla.edu | | WWW: http://zimbu.chem.ucla.edu/~arthur/ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------