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=3pObi135C11P161DHeQOWCJatrZRR3NOEXoDmO4RfDM=;
        b=X9L7YZnEGJMjCSZ0QVw4HDy71DDA1ll8NSmJpjfQz36NXZumeGkfpjjoki3nGrYEOz
         +BH0rmX751ZU012QkV0NE4X4Zw/O1/F3NWmikIuHGDtv+kSd8+K/glf50fsgDW+c9pWT
         V4gpzLsqYQH61X0SlBIojKxWeYEspUXNIhwj2vzbYgnv2EjynFfSRJfEyr53SDVFk11N
         FlX95qDIktM04OsqbfxrQIyiA0xVa+1MdVbZgMFxORgDSf2OLTSr9/j8kz0+5CmdbzC/
         pAmPJDv7k5Mi6cBvWB3jhJtL6hfsm63Ylx1b0RZBQ3Y1tSy5ZDvrj0U7LD86N/0jmF5I
         OPCg==
X-Received: by 10.152.19.8 with SMTP id a8mr5708914lae.121.1436302221447;
        Tue, 07 Jul 2015 13:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 23:50:18 +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: <20150707205018.GC18930@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>
 <1436289239 DOT 678 DOT 43 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1436289239.678.43.camel@ssalewski.de>
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
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 07:13:59PM +0200, Stefan Salewski wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 19:01 +0300, Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov 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 is not really an interpreted language, but a high level language --
> in contrast to low level C coupled with scheme. Using a high level
> language in conjunction with a fine GUI toolkit and modern drawing
> toolkits makes development really very fast.
Guile Scheme is a high level language, too. And there are GUI
toolkits for it. However, we don't use them and invent our own wheel,
probably being afraid of new dependencies. Recall, for instance,
gwave/gaw, if you're aware of them.

The low level C coupling with scheme lets us use FFI.

Cheers,
  Vladimir