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 08:28:34 +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: <02C98408-6A6C-43B8-90BE-10540BE6B162@noqsi.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1512300822020.9035@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>
 <CAM2RGhTqdCf9=tHW0hJmshknh8RWFYNxLFA4gJ6ogFkZm9BF4w AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1512300647530 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv> <02C98408-6A6C-43B8-90BE-10540BE6B162 AT noqsi DOT com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
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
Precedence: bulk



On Wed, 30 Dec 2015, John Doty wrote:

>
> On Dec 29, 2015, at 10:55 PM, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 5:14 AM, John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com> 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.
>>>
>>> Igor2 why are we doing this? Suppose for a minute we somehow got John
>>> to concede defeat what would we really have won here?
>>
>> I really think there are some basic concepts went wrong in geda/gschem (about networks, how much gschem should know about attributes and flows, whether gschem->gnetlist should be unidirectional).
>
> There are text editors that have no knowledge of anything but characters. There are text editors that profound knowledge of language (either formal or natural). In nether case is the design wrong.

Please name a few. Please make sure you name actual text editors, not hexa 
editors or bitstream editors.

I know wikipedia is not the definitive source of truth, but please check 
out

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_file

It seems I am not the only one who thinks a text file is a text file 
_because_ of the concept of lines.

>
>>
>> I really believe that one day these should be talked over. By those who understand how the whole thing works and are capable of making the necessary modifications.
>
> Or more reasonably, writing a different tool. What you want is not wrong, but it is false to the nature of what we have. What we have is not wrong either, but it doesn?t fit what you want.

Or realize that what we used to want is not as good what we want now and 
change the tools. Those who don't like the new, can keep on using the old. 
We promise we won't change their copies of the old.