Mail Archives: geda-user/2016/07/23/08:53:05
On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 10:59:10AM +0200, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
...
OK, let's continue
> 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
I don't understand what you're trying to achieve here. Do you want
to discourage me as developer and when I am away to state that the
gEDA project is dead and head its rest? I think you can do this
just now if you want, some users would be happy. Just try. To be
honest, I'm starting to be very tired with your attitude.
> 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.
>
Please contribute some code which we could discuss. Otherwise the
discussion is pointless.
> 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
No, it is not unrelated. You and some other people try to present
things in such a vision. This is not the topic I thought up. It is
steadily appearing here. I disagree with you because our potential
contributors are waiting... They want to be sure where to look at
and where to contribute to have their work non-useless and
non-abandoned. Obviously we lose contributions because of such an
attitude. I'm asking you for stopping the flame war related to
languages and libraries at least until there are some
contributions to the code. As of now, geda-gaf has many utils
written in many different languages in it, but because of such
discussions I'm beginning to think we need more strong policy
related to the languages we use in geda-gaf (like, say, ngspice,
gnucap, or pcb).
> "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."
OK, I was the same developer as you. Half a year I was waiting for
contributions. I haven't changed C code to not favour Scheme. I
didn't want to work on geda-gaf at all. Now, I see that your words
are only words. I've started to work again. Do some contributions
to the code before writing such things. "Less words, more code"
(c) Ask me, and I'll try to integrate the bits you offer to
geda-gaf. I cannot say of pcb, but if you want I would be happy
you to head this part.
> 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
You're right. I was not and am not too cooperative. I have not
enough time and English knowledge to cooperate smoothly. I'm
trying to work on myself but my life beats me. I see no problems
in such a situation. I always tried just to improve things and
always was a junior developer here. Now, when the developers we
had, have retired, I'm just the only one who has been left
(actually, there are other developers who have no time to work on
the project just now though they want to). Surely I cannot and
won't learn every languages and libraries you offer. Please do
your contributions and if they are valuable, and our users confirm
this, we'll include them in our distribution. That's my point of
view.
> 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.
Nope, you've missed the point.
I think only, with the developer base we have now, we cannot
support many languages. If you can make things better, just
contribute your code.
>
> 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.
AFAICS, our best developers started to make such forks because of
such an attitude of some users. I mean Peter B's fork, for
example. Looking at others forks I see only yours for pcb and
Roland's one for geda-gaf. I didn't look at your work on pcb (I
have different goals now) but the Roland's work is just another
project as I feel it. We should admit this. I don't want to
discourage Roland and am waiting some more contributions to the
Python part he works on. OTOH, I see, Scheme isn't worse than
Python and we could have some more contributions here, too.
> 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...
Why do you think it is my attitude? Again, I am not a PhD in
CS. I just know the language I like is powerful enough. Anyway, if
you want to work on a project, you have to respect its founders &
owners decisions. That is the way I do. If not, just make your own
project (fork) and attract users. If you can make the project
better as it is now, please do, I'll try to give you all the
permissions I can.
>
> 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.
I don't know. I see the power of Scheme now, and wouldn't like to
lose it. I wouldn't object if people develop xorn or cschem, and
if they work better than gaf now, I would probably work on
them. You know, scripting languages are similar (though some of
them are better ;-)).
--
Vladimir
- Raw text -