Mail Archives: geda-user/2012/11/17/23:44:27
On 11/17/2012 11:35 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.
Understood. And understandable.
>> 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.
Ok. So will you be writing this new tool?
If you plan to, I look forward to seeing it. From the impression of
your work style that I get from your posts, I'm guessing I'd probably
like it.
If you're not planning on doing that, is it your desire that the
current developers undertake this project? That's fine too, but I think
that, after treating them like this, they probably aren't too enthused
about the idea.
Just sayin'..
So...where do you want this to go?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
- Raw text -