MakeMaker, OMG

[Steve A. Chervitz]

Georg,

> I did few changes to Bio::UnivAln in the meantime (I can mail the diff
> and/or the newest version to you). 

The new version would be best. Isn't it available on the homepage?

--

> > A new OMG domain special interest group (DSIG) has been established for  
> > the Lifesciences:
> > 
> > http://lsr.ebi.ac.uk/
> > 
> ....
>
> This would definitely be worthwile !!!  I feel we should stress the
> importance of Perl for _fast_prototyping_, which (to me) is the niche
> we best fit in. (Ironically, a bunch of overworked volunteers 
> makes a very _slow_ development team -- we need to change this!
> Could the development of Bioperl modules in the OMG context 
> be something for which we could obtain funding ?)

Involvement with the OMG effort would certainly add strength to our
effort. I wonder, though, in the wake of the Java craze, if Perl work 
would be viewed as mis-directed. I personally don't think so but it 
could be countered, "Why not just use Java?". As you state, we need to  
emphasize Perl's niche and huge following. 

We should also be prepared for anti-Perl bias. I recently heard a 
comment along the lines of "With Perl, it is too easy to write code that 
you (or someone else) won't understand in a year". Such a comment could 
actually support Bioperl since it indicates a need for standard modules.

A key question is, from whom would you ask for Bioperl money? (Whoever 
has alot invested in Perl would be a good start).


> If Bioperl adheres to the OMG standards, rewriting selected
> components to Java and C should be painless, correct ?
> If so, that would be a heaven for fast prototyping :-)

Good point.
 
Regarding the RFI:

> A 1-page response is a must-do, I think.

Yes. They indicate that some submissions may provoke a request for 
further information, which we should be prepared for.


SteveC