Mail Archives: geda-user/2016/01/05/13:21:33
Britton Kerin:
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 6:25 PM, John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com> wrote:
...
> > Although these are good measures, once you adopt them you may start asking
> > yourself why you aren't just using a binary format. The argument for text
> > is that you can glance at a chunk of it and easily tell what's going on.
> > A stronger argument for text is that you can process it with text-oriented
> > tools.
> But ultimately the reason for wanting to use those text-oriented tools is
> the same: you can see what you're working on with your own eyes. In every
> other respect binary is better.
I counter that.
. you have to check a binary file for valid values just as you do for a
text file
. if your binary file is in some way invalid, you will have a greater
problem correcting it than a text file
. discussing why a file is invalid is easier with a text file
. a binary file might be smaller, but that does not matter much
. text files are better provided for by version systems (e.g. git)
. it is easier to write tools that write text than binary, because
debugging the output is easier
///
Also, there is no reason to change a file format unless you change the
functionality it provides, I have to "side heavily" with John on this.
If you want to change the file format, you first have to provide some
goodies that will make people to accept it. And no such "goodie"
thing has appeared.
You might write a library that reads and writes the files and if people
find it useful, they will start using it, else, it will be just your own
project.
Regards,
/Karl Hammar
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aspö Data
Lilla Aspö 148
S-742 94 Östhammar
Sweden
+46 173 140 57
- Raw text -