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: Debian amavisd-new at fly.srk.fer.hr
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fly.srk.fer.hr;
	s=mail; t=1437030479;
	bh=SUqB/4R7U4bQagQ7f1KcoIbslHWhUL6fLFIOEePiO7w=;
	h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:From;
	b=phMHNdPTc8iHdMbd39i3f9FiRKEVoUN33skcyUXOyOeYfuUG5Y8yPDOGu9mWkKnfM
	 yZOsZUcuEzGVceLcaEfO79DBWoQ7xREMGRKg8YQ1oCBF7ppLndLP1MgfKNHxq177WL
	 9a4R8WPEuCLrM9rv9cD7Ub9IsZq+Dm5xT90ME5GM=
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:07:59 +0200
From: "Ivan Stankovic (pokemon AT fly DOT srk DOT fer DOT hr) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] The new to do
Message-ID: <20150716070759.GA10165@fly>
References: <1436960577 DOT 1072 DOT 6 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de>
 <EE9F72D6-E17A-4F5C-8E9E-45F12C901C9F AT noqsi DOT com>
 <201507151820 DOT t6FIKYME001704 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
 <201507152007 DOT t6FK7lv8005229 AT envy DOT del!orie.com>
 <24AD56C6-B7C2-4D7E-B69A-F68DBACCBFDC AT noqsi DOT com>
 <201507152051 DOT t6FKp8ip006830 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
 <CAM2RGhQEoTHVychmCoHy501kiKVyNJng5d8ZAKWNA7xPgON0rg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <201507160024 DOT t6G0OZrG013557 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
 <A7F6DD00-0EDE-4556-8437-E414714BECA9 AT noqsi DOT com>
 <201507160153 DOT t6G1rD3Q016240 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201507160153.t6G1rD3Q016240@envy.delorie.com>
X-Operating-System: GNU/Linux
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 Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 09:53:13PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Integrating vs factoring, either at the source level or at the command
> line level, is neither good nor evil.  It's either well designed or
> poorly designed, and either approach has its risks and rewards.  A
> tightly integrated but internally factored app could be well designed
> and easy to safely extend; a large set of simple programs could be
> poorly designed and hard to use together or understand.  Or the other
> way.  In either case, the right thing to do is to let someone come up
> with a design *first*, and *then* discuss the risks and rewards.
> Discouraging them *before* they have a chance to demonstrate their
> idea is counterproductive.

Indeed, over the years there have been many ideas that were not
allowed to mature let alone be implemented, largely because of
threads like this one.

-- 
Ivan Stankovic, pokemon AT fly DOT srk DOT fer DOT hr

"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM, 
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"