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
Message-ID: <50A8675D.30509@neurotica.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 23:43:09 -0500
From: Dave McGuire <mcguire AT neurotica DOT com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121028 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Thoughts on gschem UI
References: <50A688B8 DOT 4090809 AT neurotica DOT com> <CC923058-B962-45B5-973D-EA03906430B9 AT noqsi DOT com> <50A6A265 DOT 6050300 AT neurotica DOT com> <4E8E6F31-EF8D-4540-BA86-7935C1C3E6D8 AT noqsi DOT com> <50A6A95C DOT 5030903 AT neurotica DOT com> <355DEF4F-51BB-44A8-A5F4-D8564E7E7885 AT noqsi DOT com> <20121116213601 DOT 13718 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> <66889AAB-3A82-4861-ACB0-B35A876EF6F4 AT noqsi DOT com> <CAC4O8c8s3837dD5so1hu-QOm8PW69sehVNNX7njQvnRGzXODGw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <B63F900B-2C12-48A4-AD4B-5A616078030B AT noqsi DOT com> <CAC4O8c9BAJe8_7KLL8aaGq30HCkj+q74DB9jywXRXogJzdqNzw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <50A83AAA DOT 6060500 AT jump-ing DOT de> <B1A7C9C1-5EAE-49AB-A03A-D5D4AFD3B0C0 AT noqsi DOT com> <50A8615E DOT 2080800 AT neurotica DOT com> <05730E0F-4DA1-47C8-80BB-5D4F37EFD94E AT noqsi DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <05730E0F-4DA1-47C8-80BB-5D4F37EFD94E@noqsi.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com

On 11/17/2012 11:35 PM, John Doty wrote:
>>> If you had a BASIC interpreter and you wanted to change to
>>> Python, you could fiddle with keywords and notation, maybe add a
>>> few extra statements, and create something that looked vaguely
>>> like Python. But it wouldn't really *be* Python. It's not
>>> practical to change a BASIC interpreter into a Python interpreter
>>> by patching it. Similarly, gschem isn't constructed the way you'd
>>> construct a 21st century graphics application.
>> 
>> You KEEP saying that.  Why is it important that everything conform
>> to your idea of a "modern GUI"?
> 
> It isn't important to *me* at all. I want stability. What I don't
> want is chaos in the name of turning gschem into something more
> modern. I'm trying to point out that this isn't trivial.

  Understood.  And understandable.

>> As I stated before, what constitutes a "modern GUI" will be
>> different a few years from now, at least from the perspective of
>> the unwashed masses.  At that time, will you demand that the suite
>> be rewritten again, for the reason that it has somehow become
>> useless because it's so "not a modern GUI application"?
> 
> I'm the guy who is advocating caution here, remember? I'm asking that
> gschem not be damaged, that any drastic change be in the context of a
> new tool.

  Ok.  So will you be writing this new tool?

  If you plan to, I look forward to seeing it.  From the impression of
your work style that I get from your posts, I'm guessing I'd probably
like it.

  If you're not planning on doing that, is it your desire that the
current developers undertake this project?  That's fine too, but I think
that, after treating them like this, they probably aren't too enthused
about the idea.

  Just sayin'..

  So...where do you want this to go?

              -Dave

-- 
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA