X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive?
References: <20150703030409 DOT 32398 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> <CAFC5WMoa2-z6bNca_bQN+jmMR260UBmoJQybUzH=L2TrBpzNNA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <1436006726 DOT 677 DOT 13 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <20150706200609 DOT GD24178 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <CAC4O8c9f0pLsLu_dyuO5ggh7RmHY1vAA=UUhk9AE0JYZb4mhBQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAM2RGhQfPO31-1Uyc3kC7w286r0VD7c41UZEZcyYquzknCxbsQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20150707060409 DOT GB14357 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <CAOP4iL2C_LU=RQy5FWYF-7RrHW6tqhqqyFJGjkwLQ2AD7FiYJA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <1436287952 DOT 678 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <559C0F7E DOT 7010009 AT neurotica DOT com> <20150707183339 DOT GA1817 AT alpha2> <559C3667 DOT 7030402 AT neurotica DOT com> <201507072059 DOT t67Kxolu020429 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
From: Robert Drehmel <robert AT zoot DOT drehmel DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D257)
In-Reply-To: <201507072059.t67Kxolu020429@envy.delorie.com>
Message-Id: <51D1EAE2-45BF-4096-8AF8-675A379DD225@zoot.drehmel.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 23:45:25 +0200
To: "geda-user AT delorie DOT com" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
X-Provags-ID:  V03:K0:/QIWJcRRHmAtbDABeoidpD0htVCfClTEqDWBt4IvgDMHjt5fgFc
 K8DJbBmdz6XfPQQtZaQRNRuO/1mpq9Ut8r1Ef5Cnlhqve2gRFOZ3tHd6UVJbCv3Our1qKui
 qBwVzBIjHG57Kzk2v0Y8H9T0EvV40OZeU86HoM76LegXyIZ7PQGbLa9JmFUcFKqjB0dS+Fj
 R3ckkvUN9b01o07P/vJgw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:O3My9ciHF6Q=:qJbZeaGXlCf3NBIc826A7u
 qxwsSpB2hB4E8O1mhrZBIMwaWkW10ECihq83Q88N6CvPiMLXy3m2/u//qbOwvF7XyloCM37Uc
 Wbi71n8FY/6TVbJ1F8k94rRRHJTaMLoitx3xj1mUQrB9rl0xA0ZUF2mQEbfa+f8+4mj3S+b8Z
 bi2RvNtTnhTnoc19B5KHzK0Ml669gDah7W1n779Wh7udHqac4RgpVjhvHLGYHU14FFdImkdsw
 oT4cZ5rsQRlUteiQSIN6qeBiYEWu6TFpdzyMNJs3HPLLv70+HsUTxxgaQhWNaiImzYSKkEVJP
 GN5IjdRzBToDwJ5NdNAku+poZ0LxDPynQALGEgDryytOXxDdWq1Gei6YMlqmy00lav30GM+Lm
 leKBqRplE1dC6svTN0L/VACw8hm3irMhnMvv8UJ3yVHzRqukx/VSoyUfqThjfUf7RXkCyggJy
 K5DBt2/+DCVrC9lxDhP0UryZRZDlgjsbxQn8uqbgRS6x3t2FnDPwKEGJ+jsckLLjfoJwpNfq/
 UXUqQkgXL9N8E0c0Jxl2APcakQ8ga3v+LXj6d5Egs+AX3BBteEUysoAh7yREEH9fuKKi6eVEw
 S+jdKyCtgWAP+n2JYPmy2fiquGACLs1tDWv9dG4x/xgl0MNBSDtFggCKCr6g6aliFye4/ZHk1
 fJk6O8wA+ZbTfvs68bd6UiZsEdAHo2wArMwBfWam//11xsw==
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id t67LjXvq014399
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 Jul 7, 2015, at 22:59, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> These days it's mostly C++, although I wish they'd've stopped adding
> to C++ about 20 years ago when it was a clean and useful language :-)

Same here, C++ all day. I wonder whether converting pcb to C++ would result in more interest and actual work towards refactoring it.
Although I work on my own pcb version to avoid typical bikeshed discussions of whether a certain feature is really necessary, I feel like its current structure is a limiting factor. Adding support for e.g. mechanical (CAD) layers feels like just hacking it in.
Converting to C++ doesn't automatically mean that its source code will be polluted with advanced template metaprogramming, but may generate momentum as people would grab some low hanging fruit like rewriting the many occurrences of C emulations of OOP concepts to use C++ language features, and while they are at it... refactor some more. Has anyone tried compiling pcb using a C++ compiler?

Best regards,
Robert