Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/12/29/19:56:57
--089e0122f08858597c052813030c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 11:45 AM, John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 29, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via
> geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com)
> > [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 01:23:37PM -0500, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT co=
m)
> [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>> appreciate Edward's work though I feel we see geda-gaf future
> >>>> differently. I, for one, wish to unify geda core functions and
> >>>> rewrite them in Scheme in order to get rid of our C-Scheme-C
> >>>> structure, throw out duplicated functionality, simplify internal
> >>>> structure, and make functions less opaque for both C and Scheme
> >>>> levels. (BTW, gschem has REPL now, are you aware of it? ;))
> >>>
> >>> A while back we debated this. I though we agreed on de-emphasising
> >>> scheme's use? (You and peter b were the only too proponents for it) I
> >>
> >> Who? You and Kai-Martin ;) ?
> >
> > There were a lot of other people who felt that scheme was something we
> > need to de-emphasis in use. The single largest group of scheme
> > developers I know of was MIT students and they don't teach it any
> > more.
> >
> > gEDA is struggling for a lack of development
>
> Pcb is struggling from the lack of a foundation. I think geda-gaf would b=
e
> much more popular if there was a good free/open layout program to export
> to. If KiCAD ever documents their netlist format=E2=80=A6
>
Pcb is fine. It has all the users. The pcb bias you constantly cry about
is very real for that reason.
> > and scheme turns off a
> > lot of wood be contributors. We need people who....
> > 1. Don't fight so much.
> > 2. Know about EDA software.
> > 3. Have time to work on the project.
> > 4. Know all the languages involved in the project.
> >
> > That is a lot to ask.
> >
> > Kai-Martin and I were not the only two.
> >
> >> I never said scheme is over-emphasised in geda-gaf. AFAIR, I always
> >> stated the opposite: Scheme is 'under-emphasized' as a scripting
> >> language in geda.
> >
> > I think something got missed in translation. I was saying you and
> > peter were the only two who wanted to keep advancing scheme's use in
> > geda.
> >
> >>> could be miss interpreting your plan here but it sounds like you are
> >>> going to replace more of the C with Scheme.
> >>
> >> Yeah, that's my plan :)
>
> Good plan.
>
Terrible plan. Tons more people know C, so you're replacing code that
people can easily read with code they can't. That's bad. You've conceded
in that past that Lisp probably isn't the best way forward, you're just
being argumentative here.
Britton
--089e0122f08858597c052813030c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 11:45 AM, John Doty <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:jpd AT noqsi DOT com" target=3D"_blank">jpd AT noqsi DOT com</a>></span> =
wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bord=
er-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D""><br>
On Dec 29, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Evan Foss (<a href=3D"mailto:evanfoss AT gmail DOT c=
om">evanfoss AT gmail DOT com</a>) [via <a href=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com">g=
eda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>] <<a href=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com">geda=
-user AT delorie DOT com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Vladimir Zhbanov (<a href=3D"mailto:v=
zhbanov AT gmail DOT com">vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com</a>)<br>
> [via <a href=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com">geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a=
>] <<a href=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com">geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>&g=
t; wrote:<br>
>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 01:23:37PM -0500, Evan Foss (<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:evanfoss AT gmail DOT com">evanfoss AT gmail DOT com</a>) [via <a href=3D"mailto:ged=
a-user AT delorie DOT com">geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>] wrote:<br>
>> ...<br>
>>>> appreciate Edward's work though I feel we see geda-gaf=
future<br>
>>>> differently. I, for one, wish to unify geda core functions=
and<br>
>>>> rewrite them in Scheme in order to get rid of our C-Scheme=
-C<br>
>>>> structure, throw out duplicated functionality, simplify in=
ternal<br>
>>>> structure, and make functions less opaque for both C and S=
cheme<br>
>>>> levels. (BTW, gschem has REPL now, are you aware of it? ;)=
)<br>
>>><br>
>>> A while back we debated this. I though we agreed on de-emphasi=
sing<br>
>>> scheme's use? (You and peter b were the only too proponent=
s for it) I<br>
>><br>
>> Who? You and Kai-Martin ;) ?<br>
><br>
> There were a lot of other people who felt that scheme was something we=
<br>
> need to de-emphasis in use. The single largest group of scheme<br>
> developers I know of was MIT students and they don't teach it any<=
br>
> more.<br>
><br>
> gEDA is struggling for a lack of development<br>
<br>
</span>Pcb is struggling from the lack of a foundation. I think geda-gaf wo=
uld be much more popular if there was a good free/open layout program to ex=
port to. If KiCAD ever documents their netlist format=E2=80=A6<br></blockqu=
ote><div><br></div><div style=3D"">Pcb is fine.=C2=A0 It has all the users.=
=C2=A0 The pcb bias you constantly cry about is very real for that reason.<=
/div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0=
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">
> and scheme turns off a<br>
> lot of wood be contributors. We need people who....<br>
> 1. Don't fight so much.<br>
> 2. Know about EDA software.<br>
> 3. Have time to work on the project.<br>
> 4. Know all the languages involved in the project.<br>
><br>
> That is a lot to ask.<br>
><br>
> Kai-Martin and I were not the only two.<br>
><br>
>> I never said scheme is over-emphasised in geda-gaf. AFAIR, I alway=
s<br>
>> stated the opposite: Scheme is 'under-emphasized' as a scr=
ipting<br>
>> language in geda.<br>
><br>
> I think something got missed in translation. I was saying you and<br>
> peter were the only two who wanted to keep advancing scheme's use =
in<br>
> geda.<br>
><br>
>>> could be miss interpreting your plan here but it sounds like y=
ou are<br>
>>> going to replace more of the C with Scheme.<br>
>><br>
>> Yeah, that's my plan :)<br>
<br>
</span>Good plan.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style=3D"">Terrible p=
lan.=C2=A0 Tons more people know C, so you're replacing code that peopl=
e can easily read with code they can't.=C2=A0 That's bad.=C2=A0 You=
've conceded in that past that Lisp probably isn't the best way for=
ward, you're just being argumentative here.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><div =
style=3D"">Britton</div></div></div></div>
--089e0122f08858597c052813030c--
- Raw text -