X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-SourceIP: 95.97.163.245
X-Authenticated-Sender: b DOT mykendevelopment AT upcmail DOT nl
Message-ID: <559985B3.8070507@iae.nl>
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 21:29:55 +0200
From: myken <myken AT iae DOT nl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive?
References: <1435510363 DOT 682 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de>	<20150703030409 DOT 32398 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se>	<CA+KzSgJM1U3vtxbH+9biKkpF+cp92Ts4jqZaKnr=QMgO+JaYoQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAM2RGhQ66bFjU-sXyrmHp7rT6weRKiA0VxeAOxriXcG0ByNx=g AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM2RGhQ66bFjU-sXyrmHp7rT6weRKiA0VxeAOxriXcG0ByNx=g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com

> Perhaps. I wonder how many people will take it as a call to action though?

I would like to. And believe me I tried, but I get lost every time. 
Without any clear architectural/structure document telling me where is 
what and why, there is a steep learning curve. The dual use of C and 
scheme doesn't help in this regard. I tried contributing to PCB but that 
one doesn't seem to have a architecture at all. Don't be offended, I am 
probably not smart enough to grasp it.

I have been following this tread with great interest, there is a lively 
debate on which language is better, but for me the programming language 
isn't the biggest problem, getting a clear view on the structure of a 
program (gschem,PCB,gerbv,...) is.

I wonder how many new developers have joined the last 5 years and made a 
substantial contribution to the source code.
If there are many than I am really not smart enough and you should 
disregard this message :-)

Cheers, Robert.

> On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Mitch Davis
> (mjd+geda-user AT hackvana DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]
> <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) [via
>> geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>>> Stefan Salewski wrote:
>>>> maybe my impression that geda/gschem usage and development is
>>>> nearly death is wrong?
>>> Look, open source software development can not die! I react quite
>>> strongly indeed to those who throw this ridiculous expression around!
>>
>> Maybe that was his intention.  If so, seems to have worked.
>>
>> (grumble troll grumble)
>>
>> Mitch.
>
>