delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: geda-user/2016/07/24/09:27:51

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-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
bh=lPNqKxQu596/Mwb6BA6p5oDRDWYMF07dPATMxVk4bCU=;
b=dOAvncalvT5NUopzC29zuH9NIS6fpF6qLqEsxJ4Ak7niYrvyQBW4y5RNyDRSY3fCXr
pJTAj2JuMctcvozxSJ1ZVKsRKNmI25scmpFIB9AUG4m3KzYJmzfHV8y8NznL/wzwTpyk
JoEJqusL3ClmpYXfOKZ6UwSlRK0v4EzKyHV+DHW6cDZuQwqphOf8TPUuIGcVkxOYQ/Sf
QB0pGRhNStFf7qQd63IYzoPVydEQb097AY7My4/EUMLb7ZebOAHz8EXKKN2vlbZwjdVN
miTLJV4ASpZ1Hqs/86cSw6FMElPyrU5HrXWCdFYBjg3tkamEQMeIVMulUK1eHwb1iqZn
7fOw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to
:references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
bh=lPNqKxQu596/Mwb6BA6p5oDRDWYMF07dPATMxVk4bCU=;
b=J3AsDqffxmF6he/n9GNgmjA9zKxGE0S0BioDNza708Iq2kq2PScasTR/o3EpSK9K6/
sI6mR58IIAIFJulBpX5aHsnmpDp5lruo+L8MpKgpXrHKM6wA+vDuQ9++mX/Eio9Nbtah
V53p2UTAXj5kFyFnEUkKhQevcj8T1NT2sAqQ7NoWLbXtdMUZdaihYL7p3/nUZxDmogPP
YEUm8TN6zMQ7rVCXQovzwx49EXIdmITCnx+wnutzwu5XzO6AOET4GKzSZNq8zIFkvjOt
CHVoeNXks0n9NidQEVJkRcPhEtPAqSdwetqD4UWpwQAyR8Rci7nc9cj9hWDOx7KKYNfd
SneA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooutNM7I8txr+eXEsfBw7qFiqaLACN/ZuJKNn5jLTr5sjXsjZK0oh2ccHz5fdnDvqJA==
X-Received: by 10.25.19.170 with SMTP id 42mr5409891lft.147.1469366760042;
Sun, 24 Jul 2016 06:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 16:25:57 +0300
From: "Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To: "Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] [OT] ngspice integration in KiCad
Message-ID: <20160724132557.GO17595@localhost.localdomain>
Mail-Followup-To: "Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
References: <CANqhZFwC48g07MUY411a20C5oipkmmkzUimhz8OgvL2Thi-yDg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
<20160722171754 DOT GB17595 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
<CAM2RGhRjABmejtuSz1PbGFFF+EHhznGGTODoh0bu2y4FJM=Cbw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
<20160723065723 DOT GC17595 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1607231009290 DOT 7286 AT igor2priv>
<20160723125139 DOT GG17595 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1607231521380 DOT 7286 AT igor2priv>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1607231521380.7286@igor2priv>
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 Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 03:30:48PM +0200, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2016, Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> 
> >On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 10:59:10AM +0200, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
> >...
> >OK, let's continue
> >
> >No, it is not unrelated. You and some other people try to present
> >things in such a vision. This is not the topic I thought up. It is
> 
> The thread you hijacked for your scheme evangelization had nothing to do
> with scheme or programming languages. It was you who brought in this aspect.
> Please read back.

Please excuse me, I couldn't forbear.

> <snip>
> >OK, I was the same developer as you. Half a year I was waiting for
> >contributions. I haven't changed C code to not favour Scheme. I
> 
> Sorry to say, but this is pure arrogance. The backbone of your reasoning is
> the assumption of the Ultimate Truth that scheme is better than C. You
> didn't know it but you got enlighted at some point, but, ah, the poor,
> stupid other developer is still stuck with C! No problem, he will once
> realize the truth.

No, I cannot admit that Scheme is better than C as well as I
cannot admit that C is better than any assembler language
(including Zx one ;-)). Have you read the tcl-vs-scheme discussion
when guile was introduced?

> 
> There's no such thing. You love scheme, it worked for you. I tried it too,
> it didn't work for me, and I don't love scheme. Many people walked your way
> and many people walked mine. Neither way is the absolute truth.
> 
> The languages I love you probably don't. I could write, with the same
> arrogance, that you don't like them because you didn't learn them the right
> way or didn't spend enough time with them, etc, and with age you would
> realize the Real Truth and give up scheme in favor of
> <my-favorite-language>. But the truth is only that you happen to like scheme
> and I don't. And this factor is totally subjective, no matter how hard you
> try to prove that scheme is superior to C or anything else.

Let's name them. I love Scheme, Asm, C, awk, a bit of sh, Pascal,
(though I don't use it now), ladder or stl logic. I would want to
know (better or ever) Python, Perl and Haskell, probably Ruby (I
am not certain here). I understand I have no time to do what I
want. I dislike PHP, VimL (though I've written some code in it,
you can find it on github), elisp (not really, just I don't like
it compared with Scheme), bash (just it, not other sh's), probably
Java and Javascripts as a modern part of HTML, and HTML itself
(yes, I consider it to be a programming language, the same way as
TeX), Asset in the form I saw it. I've probably forgotten some
other languages, this means I don't use them actively now. BTW,
I've written some things at my work using DOS/Windows batch
files. That is really ugly but rich people continue to receive
money using it (The last thing we worked on at my work with a
specialist from the EU firm named 'trumph' was their special
computer running under DOS which controls focusing of the lense of
our laser cutting machine.)

Now, your turn :-)

> 
> The rest of my reasoning was more about how the current percentage of
> "happen to like scheme" among users and potential contributors, how the
> actual maintenance issues of guile, and other pretty much objective factors
> may affect geda's future. I'm sorry that you fail to see these aspect
> because the love-or-hate-scheme thing narrows down your vision to this one
> aspect. This is exactly the mechanism I was talking about: no way to discuss
> whether scheme is a good thing in geda or not, because selective hearing of
> devs/power-users, thus if it turns out it's not the good choice there's no
> chance to fix it. And then you repeatedly ask me for contribution, right?
> And this is totally different than if I ask you for contribution on my
> projects, on which I believe in C and not scheme, right?
> 
> 

If you want to be rich, probably one of the more simplest way is
to kill a rich man and to take his money. But people have a
conscience which judges them, would you be happy to do this way?
The same way more contributions not always mean more productivity
or help. Sometimes they are harmful because users make things more
complex or even broken. Using Scheme or Python is the way to
facilitate our work, it prevents working on things which are
always error prone, such as e.g. memory allocation.

About contribution to your projects. I've saved some links to them
hoping to read the code some day and to port your novations to our
current code. Just never had enough time/motivation (accounting
for the current state of the project) to do it. More time than
motivation. I still hope we can collaborate.

Sorry for my arrogance ;-)

Obviously, I cannot see a tree in my eye myself :-)

-- 
  Vladimir

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019