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 -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~geda-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~geda-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
