Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/07/05/15:28:18
> Perhaps. I wonder how many people will take it as a call to action though?
I would like to. And believe me I tried, but I get lost every time.
Without any clear architectural/structure document telling me where is
what and why, there is a steep learning curve. The dual use of C and
scheme doesn't help in this regard. I tried contributing to PCB but that
one doesn't seem to have a architecture at all. Don't be offended, I am
probably not smart enough to grasp it.
I have been following this tread with great interest, there is a lively
debate on which language is better, but for me the programming language
isn't the biggest problem, getting a clear view on the structure of a
program (gschem,PCB,gerbv,...) is.
I wonder how many new developers have joined the last 5 years and made a
substantial contribution to the source code.
If there are many than I am really not smart enough and you should
disregard this message :-)
Cheers, Robert.
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Mitch Davis
> (mjd+geda-user AT hackvana DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]
> <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) [via
>> geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>>> Stefan Salewski wrote:
>>>> maybe my impression that geda/gschem usage and development is
>>>> nearly death is wrong?
>>> Look, open source software development can not die! I react quite
>>> strongly indeed to those who throw this ridiculous expression around!
>>
>> Maybe that was his intention. If so, seems to have worked.
>>
>> (grumble troll grumble)
>>
>> Mitch.
>
>
- Raw text -