X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at neurotica.com
X-NSA-prism-xkeyscore: I do not consent to surveillance, prick
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=neurotica.com;
	s=default; t=1444113137;
	bh=RQWC5ihEMUp9e15x1Ms10ofknswWt8J5DovvIHhhEPA=;
	h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To;
	b=Y0Qv2mmLQbz2ExjwBisWJGsg7flyjUcqPHzpdo4aXelSX1YY+juTUTTzbvUQmppMj
	 lhnYbWYsNlzNfV/Ohp71X/2Xwtgdpbjv/tZTjFsCAWGC+7+nVCJIaVpbNJs7tiqmsw
	 /kf4aoQnNE1feB/KR/4OKdiJg5GKx7ZMgHlVL2Ps=
Subject: Re: [geda-user] GTK3, Glade interface designer (router, auto?)
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
References: <20151003210701 DOT de392b925f54dadb0a5fedd8 AT gmail DOT com>
 <1443903758 DOT 1873 DOT 13 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <56104A0A DOT 9020507 AT xs4all DOT nl>
 <1443909591 DOT 1873 DOT 18 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de>
 <CAC4O8c_g7e562Gaotrbi6gLfjP6cJU1ys=MtEkDE7bSh4F9dfg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <1443975731 DOT 671 DOT 52 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de>
 <20151004191717 DOT bf8223417541a9306bfbd9ea AT gmail DOT com>
 <CAC4O8c9Bi5HJfcW6wUgm_+4O2gs4vDdBMbS2hF_0dCqnBuJahQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <1443997480 DOT 2068 DOT 32 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de>
 <CAC4O8c-bnGky=Nab59-pOTJkB8Q9Tc5t5hqE+dnEF-777hUjMg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <1444070851 DOT 1014 DOT 20 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <muv4ua$hat$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org>
 <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1510060356440 DOT 7137 AT igor2priv>
 <56133047 DOT 7030402 AT neurotica DOT com>
 <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1510060433080 DOT 7137 AT igor2priv>
 <56133CC4 DOT 7000306 AT neurotica DOT com>
 <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1510060523170 DOT 7137 AT igor2priv>
 <56135F05 DOT 9000203 AT neurotica DOT com>
 <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1510060753160 DOT 7137 AT igor2priv>
From: "Dave McGuire (mcguire AT neurotica DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Message-ID: <56136AF0.5040509@neurotica.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 02:32:16 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1510060753160.7137@igor2priv>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 10/06/2015 02:02 AM, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
> 1. I complain about the tight coupling between _any one_ scripting
> language and geda _core_. It is because I believe scripting makes sense
> on a different (higher) level, and core should be more stand-alone and
> scirpting language neutral.
> 
> 2. again point 1, from the other aspect: users should be able to use
> their favorite language; it's impossible to support all languages, but
> at least trying to provide a few alternatives is better than hardwiring
> a specific language. Having to support alternatives also help inventing
> an API between scripting and core which can help keeping things clean.

  Here we agree 100%.  Do you think it's practical to have a core with a
well-defined-enough API such that several different scripting languages
could be used, perhaps via a plugin mechanism?  Because THAT would be
wonderful, in my opinion.  It would also end this "I don't like your
scripting language" argument once and for all.

  I wonder if such a separation and API are practical.  What do you think?

> 3. I complain about the actual choice, scheme; not because it's hard in
> general, but because it's ugly (personal preference!), time wasting
> (personal experience), and even according to feedback on the mailing
> list is a blocker for many could-be-contributors.

  Hey, that barrier to entry might just save us more problems than it
causes. ;)  But more seriously, other tools use "hard" languages which
are well-suited to the task (AutoCAD comes to mind) and people accept
the simple fact that if they want powerful tools, they'll have to
actually sit down and LEARN something.  gEDA shouldn't be dumbed down in
order to cater to the absolute beginner, IMO.

> Just because electronics design is hard, and some find scheme hard too,
> that doesn't automatically validate scheme as the best choice.

  Of course not.  But to call Scheme "hard" is laughable.  I think it's
just a matter of someone taking a quick glance at it and noticing that
it's not Python or Perl or Ruby or
whatever-whiz-bang-language-is-popular-with-the-cool-kids-this-week.

               -Dave

-- 
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA