Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/09/06/05:40:26
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015, Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
A few corrections to your translations...
> Second reason: looking great.
In sense of staying alive, being a real alternative.
> Third reason: it must be C.
In core: yes, in my opinion the best combo is a smallish core written in C
with scripts in plugin. Scheme can live happily as an optional plugin.
> Fourth reason: we cannot penetrate its surface (did you try?)
Yes, see my other mail.
> Fifth reason: people have no choice (what about scripts on any language
> you could run in gschem using the 'system' command or use them outside
> of gschem?)
So why don't we have all the scheme stuff behind system() now?
> Sixth reason: One Good Implementation is a wrong way (do we have at
> least one good implementation?)
Claiming that One Good Implentation should exclusively exist is wrong.
This is totally independent on how many implementation we have at the
moment and how good they happen to be.
> Seventh reason: good support can be done for any language but scheme.
That's totally the opposite of what I said. To prove my point, check gpmi,
even in pcb-rnd: it does support scheme. I even have example scripts
written in scheme.
The point is: it doesn't limit you using scheme or any particular
language.
> Eighth reason: Scheme requires much more time to write code for
> programmers who like C-style languages.
... which is probably by far the majority of users who would ever
want to script any part of a random program today, given they have the
choice. And yes, this _is_ a valid reason when deciding for a language.
> Nineth reason: anything is better than scheme because it is truth (trust me).
Never said that. Anything is better than scheme in my case. It seems
to me lately other users expressed similar statements. You can of course
ignore these opinions and say scheme is the best, but that won't be any
more true than my "truth" as you interpreted it above.
> The message is just:
> We don't like Scheme, we aren't going to learn it because we don't
> want, and therefore any language is better.
>
> Substitute Scheme for any other language (but C :)), and I can say
> almost the same about your preference.
Yup, we were talking about personal preferences not about mathematical
proofs here. I don't know where I made a mistake in wording to make you
believe otherwise.
Our preferences differ. Just as you publicly express your preference for
scheme, I publicly express my preference for other languages. What do you
think is wrong with this?
Regards,
Igor2
- Raw text -