X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=zMIUjaOZ6POhytiLmtkFm1yq2sb+yyYqOmvYNtALnR8=; b=SnTclIPKFGg2r2KnygNnNKB6EdFUsF6px1PcMgEcQQE71jZ+fIMD69m8cx2N2c6Ncf Hd0Mf8d4c5lJ0zRjcFjKD1am54cWiIRU0riVbSQyf9Nj660cIseFBuhbjT1dCui2nWwI fbwC7P4vgxCK7gR4Fk5ES9qs0Jru096X4fr1XvFAWtQNaIqVhs8n/uawJGzahewGx4ih dfyC+YSnZqOhZtuP3DSCOKZXcb4xSpT7SKrDFrwHOZ2ZAXtxH/mtiosRh+7hNlTOXGp6 g2Wg5U0g8UE4cB/8UM3m9vxr9Zraduom9QP4yMI2l0MCapW75rqdtNg05qG5fHPN4YGZ JF6g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.28.54.78 with SMTP id d75mr18839764wma.6.1451466226231; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 01:03:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 12:03:45 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: gEDA and it's future with Scheme & Guile was Re: [geda-user] Project leadership From: "Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 12/29/15, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: ... >>> could be miss interpreting your plan here but it sounds like you are >>> going to replace more of the C with Scheme. >> >> Yeah, that's my plan :) > > Sorry but I oppose this plan and I think I can gather a lot of support. I was going to write an extended answer until I realized it would be overwhelmingly difficult for me due to I am not so fluent in English as you are. Hence I'll try to manifest what I consider to be done (and what I worked on so far). Please let me know which things you consider to be harmful for gEDA. Now then, I list my wishes here: - each C-function in geda-gaf should be available for Scheme-scripting; - all geda-gaf programs should be modularized and all their functions should be available for other programs - all duplicated functionality should be unified and cleaned up. Now, what I did so far (some of my stuff can be found on https://github.com/vzh): - rewrote pretty useless gsymcheck having lots of erroneous C functionality in Scheme, thus added - new checks; - representation of a symbol as a whole as a list having all slotting and net info without conflicts in it; - added a simple interface for using it in gschem where the user can: - check common symbol errors (in primitives or attributes); - select particular objects (or all them) and check what's wrong with them (if any) - wrote a simple DSL to quickly parse our new ini-style config files in order to get all their structure in libgeda at once (did not finish yet); if I ever will work on it further, it could close one of the blueprints we have in the bug-tracker for geda - played with gschem's undo to represent it as a plain Scheme list so user could just type something like "(get-undo)" in the REPL and see all undo info (which is now buried in libgeda C structs) as a plain list (it is in another branch, didn't check it in because it has to be cleaned up, and my attempts to work on DSL are on top of it) - added REPL in background terminal for gschem and found a way to add more REPLs which you would be able to use, say, in Emacs, using its shiny geiser environment - did lots of other work (e.g. symbol generator which could work as a gschem function, that is could have a menu for calling it; whitespace separated netlist to schematic converter; and other things) which I'm not motivated to continue to work on until we find the direction we'll go further. I must emphasize one thing: all those Scheme functions/add-ons are available on the C side as well. Finally, I consider the position of "get rid of Scheme" to be a Bad Thing which slows down geda development. Regards, Vladimir