X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 10:59:10 +0200 (CEST) X-X-Sender: igor2 AT igor2priv To: "Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via 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-user] [OT] ngspice integration in KiCad In-Reply-To: <20160723065723.GC17595@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: References: <20160722171754 DOT GB17595 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <20160723065723 DOT GC17595 AT localhost DOT localdomain> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII 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 Sat, 23 Jul 2016, Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 12:46:58AM +0000, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > ... > >>> Now, this is what we have due to everybody want 'do it my >>> way / in my preferred language', I believe. >> >> The advantage of such a statement is that any one who responds will >> inevitably risk being the creator of a flamewar by restarting those >> two fights. All they can do is talk in very general terms. > > You know how many languages have been mentioned here (lua, awk, > python, ruby, c, ada, java, scheme, etc etc) and I see all the > people who mention their preferred languages say something like "I Same old story... You pretend that it is not possible to get a software scriptable in multiple languages (or in fact in anything else than your precious scheme). I guess this is the good strategy if you want to keep scheme alive, because as soon as users can choose anything else, scheme loses its relevance almost immediately. (Although I use "scheme" a lot in this mail, my focus is on the big picture. Scheme is only one important, but small symptom. While reading, please try to keep in mind that scheme is just an example and in most contexts it could be replaced by a few other flamewar-material buzzwords like "integration vs. toolkit" (random example).) As far as I see, gschem is proceeding steadily on its path to oblivion. Your mail reflects a lot of aspects that contribute to this process. One is the way gschem (and its developers) generally refuse to be open to alternatives, in a last rugged effort to advertise the Greatness of Scheme or just to make sure some old design decisions are not reopened or discussed but stay unchanged forever, without any challenge. Note how it was again you who brought up the programming language issue in a totally unrelated thread. Just like when I accidentally used the word "language" in a different context (meaning how EEs regard the design conceptually, trying to open the "should gschem have a concept of networks" issue), and forgot to include a multiline disclaimer... And you immediately turned the thread into a pro-scheme rage. This (including my current post too, obviously) contributes to geda's fate more than the lack of spice integration. This makes us unable to talk over the design errors in our existing software: any such thread is guaranteed to sink in a scheme and/or integration flamewar. In turn this makes it impossible to fix them and this how we are determined to lose in the competition with any other project. "If it's in already, no matter how bad it is, it is going to stay and it is declared the One Good Way. So dear user, shut up and go back using it The Way I Told You." No offense meant, I don't have any problem with your person, but I do have problems with what you communicate and how you communicate it. You (and the some other stick-to-the-past developers/power users) pretend to be more cooperative than others, while in reality you are not more cooperative. You just keep pushing a different "my way" than others. Others usually admit it's just their way of doing things and provide their stuff "as-is", in hope their software is useful for the community. You somehow try to declare what the whole software should be about, and what the One Good Way is, and how is it your way. And most importantly how everything else is ruining the project. I believe this attitude is what really runining the project. I am also sure this attitude contributes to new alternatives popping up short term: people feel if they want to experiment with ideas different from "the official" they have to fork or start a new project. So its partly you who is generating the alternatives you are trying to fight against all the time. This, by the way, is good short term, but not long term. Imho the only chance geda survives another decade without shrinking into a toy of a handful of users who happened to pick it up in the mid 2000s is to change some things. These things will never change in the current project. The only way the change can happen is if one of the alternatives grows strong enough and replaces the current code. Your attitude that any alternative is bad for the project overall, may demotivate developers working on those alternatives and users trying those alternatives. Long term you may be contributing to the worst scenario by taking any opportunity to bash everyone else's ways... On the other hand, I will love to see when xorn or cschem or any other alternative reaches the level of functionality gschem provides now. I am sure you will then happily abandon gschem and join the alternative project and will push the local, non-scheme programming language (and the project's ways) just as energetically as you are pushing scheme (and your current way) today. Regards, Igor2