X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 05:54:34 +0100 (CET) X-X-Sender: igor2 AT igor2priv To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Debug: to=geda-user AT delorie DOT com from="gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu" From: gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu Subject: Re: gEDA and it's future with Scheme & Guile was Re: [geda-user] Project leadership In-Reply-To: <8444F816-17CE-4A56-A982-4A60DEDA72B8@noqsi.com> Message-ID: References: <8444F816-17CE-4A56-A982-4A60DEDA72B8 AT noqsi DOT com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Tue, 29 Dec 2015, John Doty wrote: > > On Dec 29, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) >> [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 01:23:37PM -0500, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: >>> ... >>>>> appreciate Edward's work though I feel we see geda-gaf future >>>>> differently. I, for one, wish to unify geda core functions and >>>>> rewrite them in Scheme in order to get rid of our C-Scheme-C >>>>> structure, throw out duplicated functionality, simplify internal >>>>> structure, and make functions less opaque for both C and Scheme >>>>> levels. (BTW, gschem has REPL now, are you aware of it? ;)) >>>> >>>> A while back we debated this. I though we agreed on de-emphasising >>>> scheme's use? (You and peter b were the only too proponents for it) I >>> >>> Who? You and Kai-Martin ;) ? >> >> There were a lot of other people who felt that scheme was something we >> need to de-emphasis in use. The single largest group of scheme >> developers I know of was MIT students and they don't teach it any >> more. >> >> gEDA is struggling for a lack of development > > Pcb is struggling from the lack of a foundation. I think geda-gaf would be much more popular if there was a good free/open layout program to export to. If KiCAD ever documents their netlist format? I don't say PCB doesn't. I say geda and gschem does too: - the foundation includes scheme (I know some loves it, but there seem to be evidence that others are driven away because of it) - gschem doesn't have cosistent concept of its goals. It pretends it doesn't need to know about nets because it's a dump editor, but it does know about slotting and has lists of hardwired attribute names in code - the code is much less generic than one would expect. I figured this when I though the search thing was a generic search thing and it would be easy to add my new search. I mean it's really about collecting objects on a list, display the list, visit the object when the user clicks. This should be the foundation. Instead, there is no foundation but code that is limited in searching/displaying text attributes only. Similar happens in libgeda: there's a call for listing direct neighbours (following a net line) of an object, but there's no call to list all objects directly connected to a given object on a sheet. It's not just a missing function: that part of libgeda is just a collection of random functions once needed by someone. Exactly like parts of pcb is. After actually hacing gschem, I realized your idealistic view on how good the foundations are is just a dream. (Note: I do not say gschem or libgeda is all wrong and is of low quality. I only say that I didn't find it much better than PCB's source. And that there's no clear geda >> PCB in foundations or quality. There are some aspects that geda got better and others that PCB got better. Also, both are much better than the average proprietary code I had the chance to met during my past decade as a software engineer). >> >> Sorry but I oppose this plan and I think I can gather a lot of support. > > Go over to the Xorn camp, then. That?s where the non-Scheme action is. It might very well be the future. Or you should go over to the "save a copy of current geda and never upgrade again" camp.