Mail Archives: geda-user/2016/07/23/04:52:08
On Sat, 23 Jul 2016, Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 12:46:58AM +0000, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> ...
>
>>> Now, this is what we have due to everybody want 'do it my
>>> way / in my preferred language', I believe.
>>
>> The advantage of such a statement is that any one who responds will
>> inevitably risk being the creator of a flamewar by restarting those
>> two fights. All they can do is talk in very general terms.
>
> You know how many languages have been mentioned here (lua, awk,
> python, ruby, c, ada, java, scheme, etc etc) and I see all the
> people who mention their preferred languages say something like "I
Same old story... You pretend that it is not possible to get a software
scriptable in multiple languages (or in fact in anything else than your
precious scheme). I guess this is the good strategy if you want to keep
scheme alive, because as soon as users can choose anything else, scheme
loses its relevance almost immediately.
(Although I use "scheme" a lot in this mail, my focus is on the big
picture. Scheme is only one important, but small symptom. While reading,
please try to keep in mind that scheme is just an example and in most
contexts it could be replaced by a few other flamewar-material buzzwords
like "integration vs. toolkit" (random example).)
As far as I see, gschem is proceeding steadily on its path to oblivion.
Your mail reflects a lot of aspects that contribute to this process. One
is the way gschem (and its developers) generally refuse to be open to
alternatives, in a last rugged effort to advertise the Greatness of Scheme
or just to make sure some old design decisions are not reopened or
discussed but stay unchanged forever, without any challenge.
Note how it was again you who brought up the programming language issue in
a totally unrelated thread. Just like when I accidentally used the word
"language" in a different context (meaning how EEs regard the design
conceptually, trying to open the "should gschem have a concept of
networks" issue), and forgot to include a multiline disclaimer... And you
immediately turned the thread into a pro-scheme rage. This (including
my current post too, obviously) contributes to geda's fate more than the
lack of spice integration. This makes us unable to talk over the design
errors in our existing software: any such thread is guaranteed to sink in
a scheme and/or integration flamewar. In turn this makes it impossible
to fix them and this how we are determined to lose in the competition with
any other project. "If it's in already, no matter how bad it is, it is
going to stay and it is declared the One Good Way. So dear user, shut up
and go back using it The Way I Told You."
No offense meant, I don't have any problem with your person, but I do have
problems with what you communicate and how you communicate it. You (and
the some other stick-to-the-past developers/power users) pretend to be
more cooperative than others, while in reality you are not more
cooperative. You just keep pushing a different "my way" than others.
Others usually admit it's just their way of doing things and provide their
stuff "as-is", in hope their software is useful for the community. You
somehow try to declare what the whole software should be about, and what
the One Good Way is, and how is it your way. And most importantly how
everything else is ruining the project. I believe this attitude is what
really runining the project.
I am also sure this attitude contributes to new alternatives popping up
short term: people feel if they want to experiment with ideas different
from "the official" they have to fork or start a new project. So its
partly you who is generating the alternatives you are trying to fight
against all the time. This, by the way, is good short term, but not long
term.
Imho the only chance geda survives another decade without shrinking into a
toy of a handful of users who happened to pick it up in the mid 2000s is
to change some things. These things will never change in the current
project. The only way the change can happen is if one of the alternatives
grows strong enough and replaces the current code. Your attitude that any
alternative is bad for the project overall, may demotivate developers
working on those alternatives and users trying those alternatives. Long
term you may be contributing to the worst scenario by taking any
opportunity to bash everyone else's ways...
On the other hand, I will love to see when xorn or cschem or any other
alternative reaches the level of functionality gschem provides now. I am
sure you will then happily abandon gschem and join the alternative project
and will push the local, non-scheme programming language (and the
project's ways) just as energetically as you are pushing scheme (and your
current way) today.
Regards,
Igor2
- Raw text -