X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at neurotica.com
X-NSA-prism-xkeyscore: I do not consent to surveillance, prick
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=neurotica.com;
	s=default; t=1436307391;
	bh=vcE0lg9m+X7voxnEjqrVfYalVOtSGkOyrF+iSbwcu/U=;
	h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To;
	b=T4ZUHob2OpUzy3kGCXIiSTcxEnZfdL9OCMhU7oBPNF2o2IXgP/D96rLIz7d5VoqVX
	 Y70EIKNJ1Uo+PrB6YzQC2Qf1hsAl/6deZN6iePVgW8d7Mp9L4R9z2BTr7ifsyyNldW
	 nHOj2ioe7DdJQD1t8W9U1re4IOeY8eSPW/bPzB6M=
Message-ID: <559C4FBE.4080405@neurotica.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 18:16:30 -0400
From: "Dave McGuire (mcguire AT neurotica DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
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: <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> <51D1EAE2-45BF-4096-8AF8-675A379DD225 AT zoot DOT drehmel DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <51D1EAE2-45BF-4096-8AF8-675A379DD225@zoot.drehmel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com

On 07/07/2015 05:45 PM, Robert Drehmel wrote:
> 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?

  The problem is, there are a whole lot more bad C++ programmers out
there than there are good ones.  Kicking the bad ones out of a volunteer
project can become a very itchy political situation.

                -Dave

-- 
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA