www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
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
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |