Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/02/14/12:25:19
On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 05:34 +0100, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
>
> > An open source project like geda relies on volunteers to get ahead. Few
> > people feel comfortable to learn a new language from scratch just to start
> > contributing. Choose a rarely used language and you get less contributions
> > than you could. IMHO, this is what we see with guile.
>
> I agree. While there is no good choice here (there always will be people
> driven away or brought in by your choice), the fact that such decisions
> do affect contribution must be noted and should be kept in mind when
> selecting a language for a project.
>
> I am an actual example. I am a developer who often plays around making
> minor modifications in open source software (for my own amusement most of
> the time). In case of gschem, guile (and scheme in general) was a
> showstopper on this. Not that I wouldn't be able to learn it if I really
> wanted or had to, it's just that there's always another project that is
> equailly interesting/important and does not require such effort just to
> start.
I think it must be just the IDEA that we use scheme that has put you
off. (Or the stated excuse ;))
If you dug into the code, you would find that the VAST majority of
geda/gaf is written in C. Only the (appallingly badly written - sorry!)
net-list backends make extensive use of scheme code.
scheme's use elsewhere, such as the config files are not IMO real
show-stoppers to anyone, only deterrents.
I wouldn't describe myself as a fluent in scheme or LISP (or any
functional language for that matter), but I really never found the bits
we use to be a show-stopper.
--
Peter Clifton <peter DOT clifton AT clifton-electronics DOT co DOT uk>
Clifton Electronics
- Raw text -