X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Mime-Version:	1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Thoughts on gschem UI
From:	John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<50A8615E.2080800@neurotica.com>
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2012 21:35:43 -0700
Message-Id:	<05730E0F-4DA1-47C8-80BB-5D4F37EFD94E@noqsi.com>
References:	<50A688B8 DOT 4090809 AT neurotica DOT com> <CC923058-B962-45B5-973D-EA03906430B9 AT noqsi DOT com> <50A6A265 DOT 6050300 AT neurotica DOT com> <4E8E6F31-EF8D-4540-BA86-7935C1C3E6D8 AT noqsi DOT com> <50A6A95C DOT 5030903 AT neurotica DOT com> <355DEF4F-51BB-44A8-A5F4-D8564E7E7885 AT noqsi DOT com> <20121116213601 DOT 13718 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> <66889AAB-3A82-4861-ACB0-B35A876EF6F4 AT noqsi DOT com> <CAC4O8c8s3837dD5so1hu-QOm8PW69sehVNNX7njQvnRGzXODGw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <B63F900B-2C12-48A4-AD4B-5A616078030B AT noqsi DOT com> <CAC4O8c9BAJe8_7KLL8aaGq30HCkj+q74DB9jywXRXogJzdqNzw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <50A83AAA DOT 6060500 AT jump-ing DOT de> <B1A7C9C1-5EAE-49AB-A03A-D5D4AFD3B0C0 AT noqsi DOT com> <50A8615E DOT 2080800 AT neurotica DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer:	Apple Mail (2.1085)
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id qAI4ZmVu023272
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

On Nov 17, 2012, at 9:17 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:

> On 11/17/2012 11:07 PM, John Doty wrote:
>> If you had a BASIC interpreter and you wanted to change to Python,
>> you could fiddle with keywords and notation, maybe add a few extra
>> statements, and create something that looked vaguely like Python. But
>> it wouldn't really *be* Python. It's not practical to change a BASIC
>> interpreter into a Python interpreter by patching it. Similarly,
>> gschem isn't constructed the way you'd construct a 21st century
>> graphics application.
> 
>  You KEEP saying that.  Why is it important that everything conform to
> your idea of a "modern GUI"?

It isn't important to *me* at all. I want stability. What I don't want is chaos in the name of turning gschem into something more modern. I'm trying to point out that this isn't trivial.

> 
>  As I stated before, what constitutes a "modern GUI" will be different
> a few years from now, at least from the perspective of the unwashed
> masses.  At that time, will you demand that the suite be rewritten
> again, for the reason that it has somehow become useless because it's so
> "not a modern GUI application"?

I'm the guy who is advocating caution here, remember? I'm asking that gschem not be damaged, that any drastic change be in the context of a new tool.

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com

- Raw text -