www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/09/22/18:20:58

X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:19:23 +0200 (CEST)
From: Roland Lutz <rlutz AT hedmen DOT org>
To: "Markus Hitter (mah AT jump-ing DOT de) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: [Geda-developers] PLEASE STOP !!! - Re: [geda-user] Apollon
In-Reply-To: <56018A8B.6010000@jump-ing.de>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1509222341230.1639@newt>
References: <CAM2RGhTbgUfGJZacRUQ=3VBAKtd0F7OV37oRZFVjHR4A9XecnA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20150917043146 DOT GA1837 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1509171124330 DOT 3828 AT nimbus> <20150917142035 DOT GA5896 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1509221658000 DOT 1461 AT newt>
<56018A8B DOT 6010000 AT jump-ing DOT de>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Markus Hitter (mah AT jump-ing DOT de) [via 
geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> People currently have an extremely strong tendency to rewrite everything 
> from scratch instead of looking at and improving what's already there. 
> As you did yourself.

That's not true.  I started out trying to improve gEDA.  Only after I 
found fundamental problems which I couldn't realistically solve by 
improving the existing code, I started writing something new.  Also, I 
definitively didn't "rewrite everything from scratch"; on the contrary, I 
tried to preserve as much existing code as reasonable.

This isn't always obvious as I moved many things around and renamed them, 
and sometimes much code collapsed into a few simple functions; but if you 
look, for example, at slib.py, clib.py, or attrib.py, you should be able 
to tell which code corresponds to which libgeda code.

The only things I wrote from scratch are libxornstorage, its Python 
bindings, and the command-line interface; almost everything else 
(especially most code in xorn.geda) is refactored gEDA code.

> The only chance to get Xorn reception is to enhance the experience of 
> users. Like fewer clicks for newbie-type users,

Given that the very idea of Xorn is to provide a better foundation, not to 
add features, that's hard to deliver.

> like more options for experts, like solving problems which were 
> unresolvable before.

That's more the idea of Xorn.  Things which were difficult before and are 
now realistically possible include
- proper scripting (this was one major incentive for me to start Xorn)
- solving the red dot problem
- allowing nets inside symbols (e.g. for schematic templates)
- disabling selected netlister stages (e.g. for cascade)
- passing more structured information to netlister backends (e.g. for 
allowing subschematics to be routed as independent sublayouts)
- accessing all available schematic information from netlister backends 
(e.g. for passing certain net attributes on to PCB)

> Seen in this light, Xorn is only 50% finished so far.

Much less than 50%.  If you see the above list, this should be obvious. ;)

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Markus Hitter (mah AT jump-ing DOT de) [via
geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> Xorn has a few new features, but also drops a lot of others.

The only feature Xorn drops is executing Scheme code, which is a direct 
consequence of it not embedding Guile.  This hasn't been an easy decision, 
but the lack of proper Python bindings for Guile and the fact that Scheme 
scripting would be kind of redundant tipped the scale.

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019