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=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references
	:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to
	:user-agent;
	bh=fRiY8SVss21RwMkjseK1oijpFrVMuhm4hNOA8FOfTak=;
	b=jaj6Ny8NMC9ORw+hbBES551nHyA65MH6jsPHOeHrDtFV5M+TQZwZFSFUt+1i0jOyPm
	aMg8jf+3JBpGT1Kb3LDEy+RJv/t0wPo7WlcwGOeQfbuuRLQD/OaYiPzAlJ3Z4pWF3grK
	Yv8kMPlIc0GeUUoKPlDY6dSK3WXg6pbhf+h4D7+kl038zI5gWY3dMk6vr9pmy3e+X5FX
	CqYrxCQGRE/NjqHu3c3npS5Bi826WLTpsdnRAg3MyQe7PFvhvHxWnB5KEkQExamX2V5N
	vOacNT0QKWgrcPQu55s0ERSpUHJNxtr700hav9v2t3igQaSbzmkta6Df8QvMY11mg8uu
	iZEw==
X-Received:	by 10.112.161.232 with SMTP id xv8mr12424426lbb.123.1441542995136;
	Sun, 06 Sep 2015 05:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Date:	Sun, 6 Sep 2015 15:36:33 +0300
From:	"Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	"Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] New experimental netlist features
Message-ID:	<20150906123633.GJ2637@localhost.localdomain>
Mail-Followup-To:	"Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
References:	<CAM2RGhT=aTYjyHWuxYFJXac8VhTOcB_piEGhq2dCNa61gAtFNw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<55E9BD63 DOT 8070407 AT jump-ing DOT de>
	<F6F6D986-713A-443E-B8FC-C6F7828C570D AT noqsi DOT com>
	<201509051930 DOT t85JUlTh019874 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<20150905210158 DOT GC7185 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
	<201509052107 DOT t85L7sHL024299 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<20150905213959 DOT GE7185 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1509060444550 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv>
	<20150906090700 DOT GE2637 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1509061131530 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1509061131530.6924@igor2priv>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
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

On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 11:43:15AM +0200, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
... 
> >Fifth reason: people have no choice (what about scripts on any language
> > you could run in gschem using the 'system' command or use them outside
> > of gschem?)
> 
> So why don't we have all the scheme stuff behind system() now?
> 
Because scheme doesn't force a user to recompile anything in order to
append any new functionality in this case. Moreover, any our program
(gschem, gaf, gnetlist, gsymcheck, gschlas, probably others) have a
guile built-in with all its possibilities (not all of them have
interactive mode, though).  

> >Sixth reason: One Good Implementation is a wrong way (do we have at
> >least one good implementation?)
> 
> Claiming that One Good Implentation should exclusively exist is wrong. This
> is totally independent on how many implementation we have at the moment and
> how good they happen to be.
Please don't bother, I was just a bit sarcastic.

> 
> >Seventh reason: good support can be done for any language but scheme.
> 
> That's totally the opposite of what I said. To prove my point, check gpmi,
> even in pcb-rnd: it does support scheme. I even have example scripts written
> in scheme.
> 
> The point is: it doesn't limit you using scheme or any particular language.
To be honest, I've never read anything about it. 
> 
...
> >Nineth reason: anything is better than scheme because it is truth (trust me).
> 
> Never said that. Anything is better than scheme in my case. It seems to me
> lately other users expressed similar statements. You can of course ignore
> these opinions and say scheme is the best, but that won't be any more true
> than my "truth" as you interpreted it above.
Never said this. The best language is Elvish (though some people state
it to be obsolete).

> >The message is just:
> > We don't like Scheme, we aren't going to learn it because we don't
> > want, and therefore any language is better.
> >
> >Substitute Scheme for any other language (but C :)), and I can say
> >almost the same about your preference.
> 
> Yup, we were talking about personal preferences not about mathematical
> proofs here. I don't know where I made a mistake in wording to make you
> believe otherwise.
:) No, we're talking about future of the project.

> 
> Our preferences differ. Just as you publicly express your preference for
> scheme, I publicly express my preference for other languages. What do you
> think is wrong with this?
Nothing related to your preferences. It's about who decides what should
be done in the project.

Cheers,
  Vladimir

- Raw text -