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 13:33:00 +0200 (CEST)
X-X-Sender: igor2 AT igor2priv
To: "Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <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: <20160723092248.GF17595@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1607231332120.7286@igor2priv>
References: <CANqhZFwC48g07MUY411a20C5oipkmmkzUimhz8OgvL2Thi-yDg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20160722171754 DOT GB17595 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <CAM2RGhRjABmejtuSz1PbGFFF+EHhznGGTODoh0bu2y4FJM=Cbw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20160723065723 DOT GC17595 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
 <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1607231009290 DOT 7286 AT igor2priv> <20160723092248 DOT GF17595 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
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 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 10:59:10AM +0200, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Apparently, I cannot write such quickly as you do. See my previous
> answer to you. The problem is not in scheme but in the attitude of
> the sparce developers we have now, I think.
>
>>
>> (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).)
>
> Look at gimp, lillypond, sly ... Emacs, at length.
>
> Wait a bit, I have to run to a shop for vodka, and later I'll
> read and answer what you've written.
>

No need to; I don't think our conversation leads to anywhere. I didn't 
want to start yet another endless debate, just wanted to put up the other 
opinion so the picture is complete for a bystander.