On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>= wrote:

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 03= :04:27PM -0500, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT g= mail.com) [via geda-user AT delor= ie.com] wrote:
> > You can=E2=80=99t imagine doing this with a specialized tool?
>
> The order of events to back notate.
>
> 1. PCB exports a netlist (which I will call the backward netlist)
> 2. diff of forward and backward netlists
> 3. gnetlist generates a list of changes to connections
> 4. gschem takes the changes and lets the user implement or disregard t= hem.
>
> If that seems amilliar it is because this is mostly what Igor2 did. > Igor2 had PCB run more of it but still.
>
> Why run so much through gnetlist? Because you = won't let use endow
> libgeda with an understanding of netlists and to map the changes back<= br> > the other way we need that.

I won't comment on this, please see my previous email in the lis= t today.

>
> >> Right now
> >> gschem almost has this because there is a highlight functiona= lity that
> >> lets you select a whole net and unintentionally maps the conn= ections
> >> in the process.

> > Functionality that gets in the way more often than it helps.
>
> You are right but the code is there and it works. (Igor2 proved it)
That's fine. You have all means to commit it to the central repo= .

...

> > Lisp is having a resurgence with Clojure. Scheme isn=E2=80=99t re= ally that different from other Lisp dialects. We really only use a small su= bset of it.
>
> Look at the graphs github generates of language use. I am not
> suggesting we go with what is most popular but there is something to > be said for not using a language that's largest application was in=
> teaching programming.

As you can see, the champion today is JavaScript. Please run:
=C2=A0 guile
=C2=A0 scheme@(guile-user)> ,L ecmascript
=C2=A0 Happy hacking with ECMAScript!=C2=A0 To switch back, type `,L scheme= '.

Voila! Voila?? Hurray???

BTW, the tenth place is HTML's. If even it is more popular than
any lisp there, I won't use it to program for geda-gaf. Would you
do this?

> Trying to save gEDA by tying it to scheme is like trying to save a
> lifeboat by tying it to the Titanic.

As you probably already saw, gEDA is not tied to scheme. Far
worse, it's a huge C-Scheme mess nobody wants to clean up to make
things: simpler, better, and more hackable.

>
> Scheme is there and I am not advocating it's removal. I am just sa= ying
> that Vladimir's plan to replace our already existing C with more > Scheme is probably not going to help use gain contributors.

I don't want to replace all code. I have no resouces for it
anyway. I want to clean up code and replace C-Scheme mess where it
is appropriate with something more hackable and intelligible. I want

If you want intelligible, don'= t use a language nobody knows.

Cleaning up the mess may be good, but you have two strikes against you f= rom the start: you're *replacing* functional stuff, so your best possib= le return is only a fraction of what you might get from doing new work to p= lug feature holes, and of course the unknown language issue.

The irony is that if you have enough knowl= edge of the system to improve it by rewriting it, you're one of the few= with enough knowledge of it to plug feature holes with confidence that you= aren't breaking, reinventing or otherwise making things worse.

Britton

<= /div>