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=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:organization
	:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=jI2aaXbAQhrsSow2NmQ/ZTqAm0WCy/rD5E7OvkTT8yM=;
	b=O7A16AeT3ahn3C9CYmYf1L1s+vta+gLe++WDYU3zGy6OXQe2aBJERGySjRNbHDP3bf
	GLj14eh1Jc/C/LcpQ1xAcVmHSFNdyZ1Wij+fxJqWzLns3kTIyi7swHIhVyPDl30D2dwY
	29HsTf6FxzJffErgS7ksznvbwsUV+kD+aDq+YqFHhsyfo8Os7693cuoe8cNWZcCQ466W
	OniGz5/efHGBZTk14S2MZyvywcZxwKjVJLgr8wsVPcOMOAKVd3XajwOEsy/QfAkHFIEV
	6R7hwYTJVSkRpBQ2jhtqbUKoIIoV/A2XaGJV2wa1yZyPiYUVPEjnqGk8SV+Rb2LlXgzH
	/QYw==
X-Received:	by 10.28.65.193 with SMTP id o184mr61281238wma.15.1451673680715;
	Fri, 01 Jan 2016 10:41:20 -0800 (PST)
Date:	Fri, 1 Jan 2016 19:40:45 +0100
From:	"Levente Kovacs (leventelist AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: gEDA and it's future with Scheme & Guile was Re: [geda-user]
	Project leadership
Message-ID:	<20160101194045.42795726@levivo>
In-Reply-To:	<20151231021438.0FA26809D79D@turkos.aspodata.se>
References:	<CAM2RGhS4L-ch6FEcLtdSt0vA0BdQZvq+AuFDP+9ea7Ftd=AALg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAMvDHVATJYfLUkL+5AkD31BVTbg5OdKTvZc2LVh=7Kf6Y-95EA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAD2FfiHeUtsRWtYENR-LX=DuSHWw3AEtmeCLbb40x9gUcYnjmw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<5683FC1D DOT 4060006 AT ecosensory DOT com>
	<20151231021438 DOT 0FA26809D79D AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se>
Organization:	logonex.eu
X-Mailer:	Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version:	1.0
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

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 03:14:37 +0100 (CET)
karl AT aspodata DOT se wrote:

> If I'd choose, I'd have libgeda in c only, because that what I
> know best.
> 
> That said, I'm somewhat surprised about the "we don't want scheme" 
> emphasis expressed in this mailing list.
> 
> Look at a in some ways similar project: http://www.lilypond.org/
> They use c/c++/python/scheme with scripting in scheme only, and they
> are successful at it.

I doubt that. I was having real hard time compiling lilypond on FreeBSD,
because they stick to older version of Guile. I was talking with the their
project leader, and he said they still struggling to upgrade to Guile 2.0,
but Guile developers are unfriendly. They are also having hard time because of
Guile.

Lev

- Raw text -