Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/02/04/17:20:32
On Feb 4, 2015, at 2:36 PM, Edward Hennessy <ehennes AT sbcglobal DOT net> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 4, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Hagen SANKOWSKI <hsank AT nospam DOT chipforge DOT org> wrote:
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Quoting Svenn Are Bjerkem <svenn DOT bjerkem AT googlemail DOT com>:
>>
>>> We just need to agree which scripting language to use for the flow. /Duck
>>
>> No flame war please - SCNR? 20 years this Scheme vs. Tcl stuff is now glowing..
>>
>> Well, gEDA is using Scheme while ngspice has clearly a Tcl Interface. BTW,
>> the commercial EDA world is dominated by Tcl as you certainly know. How about
>> a more pragmatic approach - using Guile with Tcl-interpreting macros or contrary.
>> I am comfortable with *booth* languages.
>>
>
> I would like to see a more popular languages evaluated. For example:
>
> - Languages that recent college graduates would already know
> - Languages that have a large number of books and reference material
>
> Using a popular language, to me, would increase the potential number of contributors.
Well, the choice of Scheme was clearly from the MIT 6.001 influence. Every EECS student at MIT takes that class, but I think many on the EE side really didn’t “get” it very well when it was built around Scheme. MIT has recently switched to Python. Both were originally intended as teaching languages, but Scheme implements a theorist’s vision of programming, while Python is more pragmatic. Python is thus far more widely known and used. It also has a much more extensive collection of modules. A toolkit like gEDA winds up making connections to other tools and toolkits. Python is better suited to making these connections than Scheme is.
>
> Cheers,
> Ed
>
John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com
- Raw text -