X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.8.0 04/21/2012 (debian 1:2.8.0~rc1-2) with nmh-1.5
X-Exmh-Isig-CompType: repl
X-Exmh-Isig-Folder: inbox
From: karl AT aspodata DOT se
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive?
In-reply-to: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1507040542390.6924@igor2priv>
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>
Comments: In-reply-to gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu
   message dated "Sat, 04 Jul 2015 05:59:25 +0200."
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Message-Id: <20150705021010.369968038A2C@turkos.aspodata.se>
Date: Sun,  5 Jul 2015 04:10:10 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
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
Precedence: bulk

Igor2:
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2015, Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 08:32:01AM -0700, Ouabache Designworks (z3qmtr45 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
...
> >> You also have the big issues like the choice of scheme as gEDAs scripting
> >> language and the gEDA file formats. Is there anything to gain by changing
> >> and if so then what would be better and how do we transition?
...
> I think there's another side of this story.
> 
> Current situation is that scheme being the only language at some parts of 
> project. Many others, including me, suggest there could be support 
> for other languages as well, or if that's not possible, at least more of 
> the core functionality should be moved from scheme to C so that bindings 
> to other languages are possible.
...
> When writing new code, wherever possible consider using C instead of 
> scheme. If anyone later on tries to provide bindings for another 
> languages, he needs to do the C <-> scriptlang binding, and doesn't need 
> to reproduce scheme code in C or another language and doesn't need to do 
> scheme <-> scriptlang bindings.

Scheme is preferred to C, as this thread shows:

 http://archives.seul.org/geda/user/May-2011/msg00556.html

Regards,
/Karl Hammar

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aspö Data
Lilla Aspö 148
S-742 94 Östhammar
Sweden
+46 173 140 57