Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/09/03/18:40:15.1
On Sep 3, 2015, at 2:30 PM, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> Do we want to retain backwards compatibility? Yes. Do we want to do
> so at the expense of new development? No. How do we reconcile these
> two goals? I don't know, and nobody has offered a workable solution.
Actually, for netlisting, I think we do. Keep gnetlist and bring in xorn.
>
> We certainly can't just leave things the way they are. That's the
> road to stagnation and doom as other projects innovate right past us.
I don’t see that happening. Where is an EDA toolkit with anything approaching our flexibility?
> We want to encourage, not discourage, development of our tools.
New tools, better tools, yes. Unnecessary changes to working tools out of a misplaced fear of stagnation, no.
>
> We certainly can't just ignore our existing user base either, though.
> gEDA is known for its hackability and that unfortunately locks us into
> APIs that were never intended, but those hacks do some pretty awesome
> things.
Unfortunately? Absolutely not! Is AWK a failure because it’s widely used, but hardly ever used for scanning telephone switch logs? That a tool takes off and does things that its designers never intended is testimony to excellent design.
John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com
- Raw text -