X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:17:50 +0100 (CET) From: Roland Lutz To: "Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" Subject: Re: the ecosystem (was: Re: [geda-user] gnetlist chaos) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <0D03FED9-A309-4F6C-9863-0EC6DB35176D AT noqsi DOT com> <20170211182330 DOT GO21523 AT foo DOT stuge DOT se> <20170211205800 DOT GB14489 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <20170212091821 DOT GB450 AT localhost DOT localdomain> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) 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 Sun, 12 Feb 2017, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote: > or we wait for some magic "everyone uses this common protocol/file > format/API/lib/mechanism" and have the first solution to offer in > t=infinite. (I strongly believe users won't wait till t=infinite.) I don't think that would even work. Projects tend to have strongly diverging ideas about what a schematic etc. actually is, and that's a good thing. Take gEDA's idea of having a drawing program (gschem or PCB) which draws lines whose nets are later determined by connectivity vs. KiCad's idea of having an "invisible" net affinity for lines. Or gEDA/gaf's idea of attributes being attached text objects with a special syntax vs. attributes being pre-defined object properties; or a schematic-centered approach vs. a project-centered approach. People have different ways of thinking and different needs, and this way they can pick the project which fits them best. The technical part of having common data structures could be realistically solved (this is where Xorn would step in handy), but it wouldn't magically solve the semantic differences. And that's, IMHO, the hard part.