X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
From: Kai-Martin Knaak <knaak AT iqo DOT uni-hannover DOT de>
Subject: Re: Scheme, was Re: [geda-user] Thoughts on gschem UI
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:02:27 +0100
Organization: Institut =?UTF-8?B?ZsO8cg==?= Quantenoptik
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <k8gr53$fvl$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <50A688B8 DOT 4090809 AT neurotica DOT com> <CC923058-B962-45B5-973D-EA03906430B9 AT noqsi DOT com> <50A6A265 DOT 6050300 AT neurotica DOT com> <4E8E6F31-EF8D-4540-BA86-7935C1C3E6D8 AT noqsi DOT com> <50A6A95C DOT 5030903 AT neurotica DOT com> <355DEF4F-51BB-44A8-A5F4-D8564E7E7885 AT noqsi DOT com> <20121116213601 DOT 13718 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> <66889AAB-3A82-4861-ACB0-B35A876EF6F4 AT noqsi DOT com> <CAC4O8c8s3837dD5so1hu-QOm8PW69sehVNNX7njQvnRGzXODGw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <B63F900B-2C12-48A4-AD4B-5A616078030B AT noqsi DOT com> <CAC4O8c9BAJe8_7KLL8aaGq30HCkj+q74DB9jywXRXogJzdqNzw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <50A83AAA DOT 6060500 AT jump-ing DOT de> <B1A7C9C1-5EAE-49AB-A03A-D5D4AFD3B0C0 AT noqsi DOT com> <50A8615E DOT 2080800 AT neurotica DOT com> <05730E0F-4DA1-47C8-80BB-5D4F37EFD94E AT noqsi DOT com> <50A8675D DOT 30509 AT neurotica DOT com> <CAM2RGhQ7aZf_yiOw4ibKTe5RnH7p8W50Maqo1YrVnLbJuhX-1Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <F9FB3DFD-3D4D-4744-81E8-172D48E96FE0 AT noqsi DOT com> <50A90E3B DOT 6090203 AT neurotica DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet AT ger DOT gmane DOT org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: bibo.iqo.uni-hannover.de
User-Agent: KNode/4.4.11
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com

Dave McGuire wrote:

>>  He has expressed an
>> interest in rewriting it in Guile, which would put it more in the
>> gEDA main stream, although it seems only a small minority of us can
>> write Guile scripts.
> 
> ...which is something that I just don't get.

Still it is true.


> Scheme has got to be the simplest, cleanest programming language I've
> ever seen.

Which proves to say that simplicity and cleanliness is not everything. 
Else, the game of go would have replaced chess a few centuries ago :-)

Elegance and simplicity comes at a price. Scheme is functional at its 
core. However, the overhelming majority of programming languages is 
imperative. Imperative algorithms seem much easier to grasp. I suspect 
neanderthal genetics at work. It is not always the objectively most simple 
techniques that provide the easiest way to master a task.

Even if you reject my genetic suspicion, there is still the fact that the 
potential contributers are very likely not well versed in scheme or any 
other functional language. The entry barrier is significantly higher than 
with a more common choice of scripting language. For an open source 
project which has to attract sufficient contributers to stay alive in the 
long run, this may overshadow the benficial aspect that elegance on source 
level.

Just my three cents...

---<)kaimartin(>---