Talk:GSoC Ideas 2015: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
ATenderholt (talk | contribs) (Created page with "== cclib == I know there has been opposition of linking the Python interpreter into Avogadro for license and dependency reasons, but this seems to be a very straight-forward...") |
(→cclib) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I know there has been opposition of linking the Python interpreter into Avogadro for license and dependency reasons, but this seems to be a very straight-forward approach. Thoughts? | I know there has been opposition of linking the Python interpreter into Avogadro for license and dependency reasons, but this seems to be a very straight-forward approach. Thoughts? | ||
Why can't Avogadro just call the Python command-line? If cclib supports CML or CJson, there's no need to link to Python. | |||
Alternatively, if Python bindings are added, this is a natural extension without needing the Python interpreter. | |||
If this project is chosen (and I hope it is), a good student could evaluate the options and discuss. :-) | |||
== misc projects == | == misc projects == | ||
How fast OpenCube with generating surface data? | How fast OpenCube with generating surface data? | ||
Not bad, but the VMD implementation is clearly faster, and I think with the EDT paper, a faster implementation of all types of surfaces could be found. | |||
Latest revision as of 23:30, 24 January 2015
cclib
I know there has been opposition of linking the Python interpreter into Avogadro for license and dependency reasons, but this seems to be a very straight-forward approach. Thoughts?
Why can't Avogadro just call the Python command-line? If cclib supports CML or CJson, there's no need to link to Python.
Alternatively, if Python bindings are added, this is a natural extension without needing the Python interpreter.
If this project is chosen (and I hope it is), a good student could evaluate the options and discuss. :-)
misc projects
How fast OpenCube with generating surface data?
Not bad, but the VMD implementation is clearly faster, and I think with the EDT paper, a faster implementation of all types of surfaces could be found.