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 g= eda-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&g= t; 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 in= ternal
>>>> structure, and make functions less opaque for both C and S= cheme
>>>> levels. (BTW, gschem has REPL now, are you aware of it? ;)= )
>>>
>>> A while back we debated this. I though we agreed on de-emphasi= sing
>>> scheme's use? (You and peter b were the only too proponent= s 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<= br> > more.
>
> gEDA is struggling for a lack of development

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

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>
=C2=A0
> 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 alway= s
>> stated the opposite: Scheme is 'under-emphasized' as a scr= ipting
>> 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 y= ou are
>>> going to replace more of the C with Scheme.
>>
>> Yeah, that's my plan :)

Good plan.

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.
=C2=A0
Britton

--089e0122f08858597c052813030c--