X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Wed, 30 Dec 2015 07:28:51 +0100 (CET)
X-X-Sender:	igor2 AT igor2priv
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Debug:	to=geda-user AT delorie DOT com from="gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu"
From:	gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu
Subject:	Re: gEDA and it's future with Scheme & Guile was Re: [geda-user]
	Project leadership
In-Reply-To:	<2297464D-0109-4CA8-98D5-AC33BD0B02C5@noqsi.com>
Message-ID:	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1512300723150.9035@igor2priv>
References:	<CAM2RGhS4L-ch6FEcLtdSt0vA0BdQZvq+AuFDP+9ea7Ftd=AALg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <8444F816-17CE-4A56-A982-4A60DEDA72B8 AT noqsi DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1512300544550 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv> <A06FE370-5416-41F5-BBAA-BCF0D975DDD3 AT noqsi DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1512300635240 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv>
	<2297464D-0109-4CA8-98D5-AC33BD0B02C5 AT noqsi DOT com>
User-Agent:	Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
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, 29 Dec 2015, John Doty wrote:

>
> On Dec 29, 2015, at 10:37 PM, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015, John Doty wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 29, 2015, at 9:54 PM, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
>>>
>>>> After actually hacing gschem, I realized your idealistic view on how good the foundations are is just a dream.
>>>
>>> It?s not perfect but that isn?t a reason to make it worse. It?s pretty good compared to a lot of software.
>>
>> There are resons to make it better.
>>
>> There is no reason to claim geda has much better foundations than PCB.
>
> I?ve never found a serious limitation in geda-gaf abstractions.

I have. See the mailing list traffic of the past few hours.

> It can do pretty much everything I need.

It can do most of what I need. Same goes for PCB. The missing blind via in 
PCB happens to be much less rpoblematic for me, than any of the missing 
features I listed for gschem.

> Pcb simply can?t capture perfectly reasonable structures. That?s both 
limiting and confusing.

Gschem simply can't capture or fully handle a perfectly reasonable 
concept: named networks. It can represent networks, it can name them, but 
nothing more. It's a very similar limitation to PCB's vias: it can place 
vias, it does understand vias, so the thing is there. It just doesn't do 
what we want it to do. Gschem is not better or worse than PCB, they both 
need improvement.

>
>>
>> There are reasons to check what parts PCB got better and what parts gschem got better and change both tools accordingly.
>>
>> There is no reason to label any attempt to any change dangerous only because it's a change to existing tools, not proposed by you.
>
> And if you pay attention, I don?t. But if you feel the need to sell a change to me,

I don't. I did all my work in forks. I never intended any of these to be 
used by you as I know you don't use pcb and you don't want any sort of 
back annotation other than what you ar already using. I can live with 
that, I don't want to change the ways you use geda.

It's rather the other way around: people are trading changes among 
eachother, and you try to stop them.

- Raw text -