X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 207.224.51.38
X-Authenticated-UID: jpd AT noqsi DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: [geda-user] New experimental netlist features
From: John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <201509032030.t83KU1Yq017045@envy.delorie.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 16:39:27 -0600
Message-Id: <FA19D3BF-51B4-4345-84D1-F5F9AC0000D7@noqsi.com>
References: <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1509031356150 DOT 13201 AT nimbus> <55E8773B DOT 9000902 AT jump-ing DOT de> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1509031846370 DOT 7163 AT nimbus> <55E8831A DOT 8050307 AT jump-ing DOT de> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1509032004020 DOT 10628 AT nimbus> <55E891FA DOT 2010509 AT jump-ing DOT de> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1509032039300 DOT 14871 AT nimbus> <BC7E3E69-4914-4654-B020-1338C71E0CDB AT noqsi DOT com> <201509032030 DOT t83KU1Yq017045 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id t83MdYc4030359
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 Sep 3, 2015, at 2:30 PM, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:

> Do we want to retain backwards compatibility?  Yes.  Do we want to do
> so at the expense of new development?  No.  How do we reconcile these
> two goals?  I don't know, and nobody has offered a workable solution.

Actually, for netlisting, I think we do. Keep gnetlist and bring in xorn.

> 
> We certainly can't just leave things the way they are.  That's the
> road to stagnation and doom as other projects innovate right past us.

I don’t see that happening. Where is an EDA toolkit with anything approaching our flexibility?

> We want to encourage, not discourage, development of our tools.

New tools, better tools, yes. Unnecessary changes to working tools out of a misplaced fear of stagnation, no.

> 
> We certainly can't just ignore our existing user base either, though.
> gEDA is known for its hackability and that unfortunately locks us into
> APIs that were never intended, but those hacks do some pretty awesome
> things.

Unfortunately? Absolutely not! Is AWK a failure because it’s widely used, but hardly ever used for scanning telephone switch logs? That a tool takes off and does things that its designers never intended is testimony to excellent design.

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com