X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:17:50 +0100 (CET)
From:	Roland Lutz <rlutz AT hedmen DOT org>
To:	"Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: the ecosystem (was: Re: [geda-user] gnetlist chaos)
In-Reply-To:	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1702121040590.7286@igor2priv>
Message-ID:	<alpine.DEB.2.11.1702121105060.2199@nimbus>
References:	<D0E30DB4-3ADF-415C-A95E-B58F09AE054D AT noqsi DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1702111609100 DOT 25113 AT nimbus> <CAJXU7q_ogjTmEOjruGJ3od-GYdv_gef0X_yc7Fne1q6kDu1xrg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <0D03FED9-A309-4F6C-9863-0EC6DB35176D AT noqsi DOT com> <20170211182330 DOT GO21523 AT foo DOT stuge DOT se>
	<FA6FF0F2-6850-4B55-A19F-A343CB8762A9 AT noqsi DOT com> <20170211205800 DOT GB14489 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <CAM2RGhQxatfsMJ=MpUUyyhcU9-1wzapE319CSiBzuJB9DLCxpQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20170212091821 DOT GB450 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1702121040590 DOT 7286 AT igor2priv>
User-Agent:	Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
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 Sun, 12 Feb 2017, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
> or we wait for some magic "everyone uses this common protocol/file 
> format/API/lib/mechanism" and have the first solution to offer in 
> t=infinite. (I strongly believe users won't wait till t=infinite.)

I don't think that would even work.  Projects tend to have strongly 
diverging ideas about what a schematic etc. actually is, and that's a good 
thing.  Take gEDA's idea of having a drawing program (gschem or PCB) which 
draws lines whose nets are later determined by connectivity vs. KiCad's 
idea of having an "invisible" net affinity for lines.  Or gEDA/gaf's idea 
of attributes being attached text objects with a special syntax vs. 
attributes being pre-defined object properties; or a schematic-centered 
approach vs. a project-centered approach.  People have different ways of 
thinking and different needs, and this way they can pick the project which 
fits them best.

The technical part of having common data structures could be realistically 
solved (this is where Xorn would step in handy), but it wouldn't magically 
solve the semantic differences.  And that's, IMHO, the hard part.

- Raw text -