X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 22:19:15 -0400
From: al davis <ad252 AT freeelectron DOT net>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] gnet-spice-noqsi documentation
Message-ID: <20160911221915.160b7b15@floyd.freeelectron.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4O8c-ijA+H17en8u36PK91+4VOjEyCSX8c9DqDzL3uLTzE0g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8885DFA6-76D0-4A2B-B7BE-C1BD9AFFCDD3 AT noqsi DOT com>
	<20160906171850 DOT 760f1845663014bb2717461d AT gmail DOT com>
	<CAOP4iL077q5-yvxXZ8w4jQDzcqjjCkZuCcfw2Juzk1RLnp0mpQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<20160910203651 DOT 3e03a6ea AT floyd DOT freeelectron DOT net>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1609110438100 DOT 7286 AT igor2priv>
	<20160911085548 DOT 3ff10379 AT floyd DOT freeelectron DOT net>
	<CAC4O8c-ijA+H17en8u36PK91+4VOjEyCSX8c9DqDzL3uLTzE0g AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 Sun, 11 Sep 2016 11:38:10 -0800
"Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]"
<geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:

> Exactly.  Autotools work fine.  The prospective replacements have all failed
> because they aren't big enough improvements to be worth switching.
> Most of them have been significant downgrade in some ways, as well as
> not bothering to provide the same interface.

I agree with all that except "autotools work fine".  What it needs
isn't a complete start-over, but rather a good cleaning, kind of like
what Tibor is doing to PCB.

> When replacement software is worthwhile e.g. git vs. cvs/svn, the switch
> happens almost immediately.

Actually, it's more like an exponential, like the diode curve.  There's
a quiet period, which can be quite long and frustrating, then bang.



In high performance scientific computing ...    C was somewhat of an
improvement over FORTRAN, so the switch happened slowly and
incompletely, but most stuck with FORTRAN.  Then the switch from
FORTRAN and C to C++ happened almost immediately, as the new generation
of scientific programmers used C++ almost exclusively and left the
FORTRAN programmers behind.


All of the intermediate trials may look like failures to you, but they
are really not.  They are necessary steps on the way.  The big
successful one would not have happened without the intermediate steps
along the way.  The big one also would not have happened without
persistence and confidence, getting past the nay-sayers.