geda-developers team mailing list archive

[Vladimir Zhbanov <vzhbanov@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 03:39:05PM -0400, Evan Foss wrote:
...
> >> > It's frustrating for me that the core functionality of libgeda/gschem is
> >> > written in C (e.g. reading and writing of files) which makes it
> >> > unmaintainable (see, for example, what bugs are marked as critical at
> >> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/geda) for a long time. I believe, it would be
> >> > easier to fix them if the geda-gaf language was really Guile/Scheme.
> > What's wrong with this?
> 
> Everything Ed said in his reply I agree with and I think most people
> probably would too. For long term project health we have to
> deemphasize scheme use.
I believe it is very under-emphasized yet :(
...
> I am not opposing what you are doing, just saying that in the long run
> I worry that making the core use scheme when new developers for it are
> rare is dangerous.
Don't know.
...
> >> Yes Peter Brett also likes scheme but respectfully he is leaving.
> > All this is about consensus. I proposed a solution that already has been
> > considered and you can find the ideas in our wiki: using gobject's and
> > already made bindings (see wikipedia for links).
> 
> Again I was not opposing your project. Just pointing out you are a lot
> more bullish on scheme than it seems everyone else is.
...
> >> We need less emphasis on scheme. I am not saying it needs to go, just
> >> that we need to have an alternative.
> > I might say this about any other language.
> 
> I can't swing a cat in Cambridge Ma. with out hitting someone who
> knows C. Heck it was a required course when I was in college. Scheme
> is far lower in adoption. Again not saying you should not do your
> project.
Fair enough.

> >> >   1.) Libraries should be usable from any language.  Having several
> >> > different scripting languages in gEDA may be a bad idea (I'm not sure, but I
> >> > tend to agree with you), but there's really no reason why a Nim program
> >> > shouldn't be able to process gEDA files.
> > This one.
> > Two connected orthogonal arguments, unrelated to each other:
> > 1. having many scripting languages is a bad idea  (that is, Guile must go off)
> > 2. Nim must have an ability to process gEDA files (my first impression: why
> > guile? it restricts any other languages, e.g. Nim)
> 
> The line above that you are replying too. I don't recall writing that.
> I think it was someone elses.
It's Roland's one. Just an example of thoughts that cause protest in my
head (probably I am wrong?)
I had no intention to argue with you here, just my thoughts during
reading the letter.
...
> > I would agree with using his library if that had been done honestly,
> > after consensus among the developers. Now I don't ever know what the
> > geda-gaf admin status is for and what it changes if other people (hi, DJ
> > and Markus) decide who and where must drive the development in the
> > project (it's about so named "levels of trust" here) and have all levers
> > to move it the way they want without asking anybody else. Although I
> > appreciate their work, I feel this behaviour not be fair.
> 
> 1. The first time you miss attributed a quote to me I was ok but this
> is the second time and I am getting irritated. Again this was Roland.
> 2. You were the one decenter on the thread "developer excitement? was
> Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive?" when the subject was raised.
> I assumed that was a consensus. Peter was totally absent at the time.

Sorry, I'm just tired. I've never written so much in English and never
thought I would do. It takes too much power to do this for me. I would
better programmed something :) Probably quoting is not the best one
because my mua converts HTML into text.

Cheers,
  Vladimir