X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sbcglobal.net; s=s2048; t=1436289611; bh=EQVUtPwP/2BiTPtObUr2+/ZnA7tpklPbkVmdCGRHm7Y=; h=From:Date:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:To:From:Subject; b=FxQyabteoWcszVN63KJ1cUcDv39q7DVbEjOR5qoNp+l5h/6DYQl0L6MLLXlZcL6IecCtCh4aDNnRhmJBFNjuNKzzPVwCQY73wr962wo/A4DsKFO/fk+Y3CrcCztzXyXvpL6NZNOGEproNomjeOGxHPvGtStdelMwFBnCXPXccoWtSP6AhvdsyIwIts/2z3NqWGkxl7xW4bOhIX//flb2YfRLc1oopiW65pdHPPnZLGIZN0yJ56vP2tydUCWQygu08QjfB95Q6zbTEgjJFZFhC5Z5uNXyE0iqvfjBAbqaFvZmpjMU7JV2kledjvYd3LTlpCA7TO64zsdM1HC3u3bBSA==
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:	896791 DOT 17591 DOT bm AT smtp117 DOT sbc DOT mail DOT gq1 DOT yahoo DOT com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:	ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG:	YPNc0toVM1mZwnTxEQDXY1WCMN9CgNWZoaRrFMOVUP5DrDI
	VETjR7yekA.zTcoM1uIq29xr7Z15PBl036IUSVmeAlv7p8vFVCFpEb8wPqaN
	iLNYUmERSh6tPbSNsxRg4uYhm__WgF1b7iSrD5jv2c3Me70TaE1bJgc1GPoO
	cH4nDDozeW7EwGYUK5Yb0L5bLnUsBrPgXgelU.EoZdRmauF6NS5rgKU5vgcs
	av7LWvp_GwUD_FHLOU.cCCRPTDW6nwqrO.918c5Ef2SGp4KUfYSDpxcks1gs
	Mj7z.yfqVotf4V7S6FmtJaV8ZUVjRZj3IBCu71Ql306T.oDn_djHOudjb3Us
	AWG0EOX_2cJkkf3PA0s86jknmUL1_7LDH4vdiF7HXGG.gOOTM6opLILfNiHu
	G5U4ZbxmpALEUIYPSj5hQ6iFOShqyCwkakhgcnkPPcnz3mlD.8nKAN.m4Ofv
	f_LKfLATiTOLhxXiX1OeLVe4o7nFr9vnczeYsTvsnZURsHb2F63d96hro6Xb
	YgVOZRWBJwfYznSn1QGQB4yPpuwU7mDh_x7woDtupbQDnoXrj
X-Yahoo-SMTP:	b8jVkbOswBAqZ4BhECp7nxPJUfTGEnEGv_G4qgQeZMeAbA--
From:	"Edward Hennessy (ehennes AT sbcglobal DOT net) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0 (1.0)
Date:	Tue, 7 Jul 2015 10:20:10 -0700
Message-Id:	<1FB0D727-9B89-4017-8FDE-7D9EEBE1589D@sbcglobal.net>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive?
In-Reply-To:	<20150707160130.GA18930@localhost.localdomain>
References:	<1435510363 DOT 682 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <20150703030409 DOT 32398 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> <CAM2RGhSb=z35RYaJQmh-S4N73ng9WOj4ySmy_05J-7KGdBv8SA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAOP4iL3VBaS+bJhKJDk=_iuBSjDPY2-pvMdz5zPnf7A_rwD0Jw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20150703191532 DOT GB21182 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1507040542390 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv> <20150707160130 DOT GA18930 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
To:	"geda-user AT delorie DOT com" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
X-Mailer:	iPhone Mail (12H143)
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id t67HKIOH024495
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

Sent from my iPhone

>> On Jul 7, 2015, at 9:01 AM, Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 05:59:25AM +0200, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
>> ...
>> I think there's another side of this story.
>> 
>> Current situation is that scheme being the only language at some parts of
>> project. Many others, including me, suggest there could be support for other
>> languages as well, or if that's not possible, at least more of the core
>> functionality should be moved from scheme to C so that bindings to other
>> languages are possible.
> 
> Why not to assembler? ;)
> 
> I think other way round. For me, interpreted languages are preferable.
> BTW, Stefan Salewski (who started this flame :)) has often claimed
> that if we'd use an interpreted language, the development of gEDA would
> be quicker.
> 
> It's frustrating for me that the core functionality of libgeda/gschem is
> written in C (e.g. reading and writing of files) which makes it
> unmaintainable (see, for example, what bugs are marked as critical at
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/geda) for a long time. I believe, it would be
> easier to fix them if the geda-gaf language was really Guile/Scheme.

To increase the number of developers on the project, we would need to find people interested in EDA, willing to contribute to open source, and know C or Guile/Scheme.

I speculate that way more people know C than Guile/Scheme, and if we moved to project over to completely Guile/Scheme, would reduce the number of candidates for developers.

Many job openings for electronic, firmware, and embedded engineers want some form of scripting language, like Python or Ruby. Many careers working close to the hardware level use C.

I believe using languages that gEDA users would use in the course of their careers would increase the number of potential developers.

The likelihood that this thread, including the input from all the developers and users, sets direction of the gEDA is slim. One developer either dives in and changes things, or goes somewhere else and starts a new version. I'd like to see some process that resolves the conflicting priorities of the community, can set direction, and allow multiple developers to coordinate as a team.

Cheers,
Ed

- Raw text -