Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/12/29/23:52:24
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015, John Doty 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 com) [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 be much more popular if there was a good free/open layout program to export to. If KiCAD ever documents their netlist format?
I don't say PCB doesn't.
I say geda and gschem does too:
- the foundation includes scheme (I know some loves it, but there seem to
be evidence that others are driven away because of it)
- gschem doesn't have cosistent concept of its goals. It pretends it
doesn't need to know about nets because it's a dump editor, but it does
know about slotting and has lists of hardwired attribute names in code
- the code is much less generic than one would expect. I figured this when
I though the search thing was a generic search thing and it would be easy
to add my new search. I mean it's really about collecting objects on a
list, display the list, visit the object when the user clicks. This should
be the foundation. Instead, there is no foundation but code that is
limited in searching/displaying text attributes only. Similar happens in
libgeda: there's a call for listing direct neighbours (following a net
line) of an object, but there's no call to list all objects directly
connected to a given object on a sheet. It's not just a missing function:
that part of libgeda is just a collection of random functions once needed
by someone. Exactly like parts of pcb is.
After actually hacing gschem, I realized your idealistic view on how good
the foundations are is just a dream.
(Note: I do not say gschem or libgeda is all wrong and is of low quality.
I only say that I didn't find it much better than PCB's source. And that
there's no clear geda >> PCB in foundations or quality. There are some
aspects that geda got better and others that PCB got better. Also, both
are much better than the average proprietary code I had the chance to met
during my past decade as a software engineer).
>>
>> Sorry but I oppose this plan and I think I can gather a lot of support.
>
> Go over to the Xorn camp, then. That?s where the non-Scheme action is. It might very well be the future.
Or you should go over to the "save a copy of current geda and never
upgrade again" camp.
- Raw text -