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:mail-followup-to:references
	:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to
	:user-agent;
	bh=cNJKCYoWZXKPSzkFjzNPHCdC0BT3Bs+4nRvxEGZRuxQ=;
	b=BmKdZtfDHbw3ku9ne4oTnggjHQnvTM9ueSmhFvg9w8boUrOEbFnSsuIAg8djvfo3P+
	XU1Ohi+HEuBpEQSeiROAJv3YxengqIXFhqdjH/xgHBgfSsbJXG18svVG2DtxOwjKqd/0
	3kzTJVQHJrt8YULAS5OJ9Cda+ZbDq1OYIl1T4fEYYuFw+zs4FxccAHRAtvFjALKzpLOK
	iSz/ki2A5pJQtWC4XizFIvmlM96GsL+y/YWY3GpvviCnJOGQ2gL7qimkaeVbvkaNQ5Vn
	hIKCUnHJVsP6XdsNgnY7BZHpth/CnyBw6D7sdQ6bKCVL6YlvXHi/1OLsS9Kab6g57ZKQ
	M2ZA==
X-Received:	by 10.152.88.77 with SMTP id be13mr5574147lab.112.1436301685734;
	Tue, 07 Jul 2015 13:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
Date:	Tue, 7 Jul 2015 23:41:23 +0300
From:	"Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov 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-user] gEDA/gschem still alive?
Message-ID:	<20150707204123.GB18930@localhost.localdomain>
Mail-Followup-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
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>
	<CAM2RGhQvuGNprFt+71oPcsV667-KtckaDkjwTKUQHDoBe0GVvw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<CAM2RGhQvuGNprFt+71oPcsV667-KtckaDkjwTKUQHDoBe0GVvw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
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 Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 12:45:44PM -0400, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
...
> > 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.
> 
> I do not agree.
> 1. Scheme as a language falling in developer base. Even if you wanted
> a different language from C it really is not the best choice right
> now. (please see our other thread)
:)

> 2. Does compiling before execution really slow development that much?
> If you are iterating that rapidly then something else is kind of
> dubious.
What is this about? Guile DOES compile its programs now.
Compiling of C slows writing of extensions. Do you prefer to write
extensions in C and propose the geda users to always work with C
sources? 

> 3. For small throw away plugins interprited languages make sense but
> for exectution time I prefer the speed of trade off we have now.
I don't understand this sentence, sorry. Could you please elaborate some
more?

...
> If I could I would limit our language choices for the core of gEDA and
> PCB but I have 0 authority.
Probably, we have to discuss language limiting. For me, 2-3 languages
would be enough :) I'm not certain of your authority. Who can prohibit
us to discuss this here?

...
> > I believe real coding is the way to go.
> 
> Was someone doing fictional coding? (ok now I am being snarky)
I'm about this:
https://www.mail-archive.com/geda-user AT moria DOT seul DOT org/msg30998.html

> 
> > For language bindings, gobject libraries already used in geda-gaf would
> > be helpful. I didn't hear about any comparable libraries yet.
> 
> If we had better documentation you could implement that.
Better documentation for what?

Cheers,
  Vladimir

- Raw text -