Also, as a somewhat independent developer I can't help but note that message traffic is not as useful metric for usage or usefulness as one might think. In fact the volume of traffic can be inversely proportional to software quality and amount of documentation.
On Jun 22, 2010, at 11:51 PM, Matthew Berryman wrote:
I think the low volume simply reflects the lower use of MASON compared with some other tools, e.g. Repast.
The response from the main developer Sean is usually pretty quick (there are some of us in the MASON community who wonder when Sean actually sleeps), and very helpful. I plan on contributing a bit more myself to the discussion---have just been given a big new project and hope that MASON will be used as part of it.
MASON is certainly very well architected.
Dr Matthew Berryman
Defence and Systems Institute
Bldg. W (MLK-05)
University of South Australia
Mawson Lakes SA 5095
t +61 8 8302 5882
f +61 8 8302 5344
m +61 413 458 594
CRICOS Provider Number: 00121B
On 23/06/2010, at 7:15 AM, Tomas Puelma wrote:
I'm evaluating MASON to do my research in modeling biological systems with
ABMs. I'm liking a lot MASON over other simulation tools I've seen, but I'm a little
concerned with the support. So, I wanted to ask... how is it?
For what I see, there are few messages and participation in this mailing list. Is
there any developer or member of the MASON proyect actively seeing and
answering the users questions? Are the responses quick?
I think support its a key element when using a tool/library like this, so I'm really
hoping the support here is good, because, like I said, I'm liking MASON features a
Thanks in advance.
Miles ParkerPresident and Chief Software Architect