On 8/30/07, Ales Hvezda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Nobody said there was. But if you're going to undermine any and every > > Okay, so what is with this statement: > > > ... I have to cast my vote for OCaml or Haskel ...
The English language is filled with vaguarities, which is the source of much humor, but also even understanding. This is one of them. To cast a vote means that you have a preference for something. There need not be an official ballot, nor any judiciary committee to ensure fairness, etc. Indeed, all a ballot does is make "casting a vote" a tangible, quantifyable activity. > seems like you are trying to vote for something? Again this Only if taken literally. > Btw, since we are talking about OCaml and Haskel, please post a > URL to a "non-trival real world free software" code base written in > either one of these languages that I can evaluate. Thanks. Since I do not know what you mean by "non-trivial" or "real-world", I must guess, and probably set my standards pretty low. For Haskell, the best known is Darcs, a revision control tool you've undoubtedly heard about. There is a large number of developers who, based on mailing list activity, make contributions on a weekly, sometimes daily, basis. To toot my own horn, I'm preparing to release the next version of my C Unit Testing package, which is now written in Haskell (converted from C). For OCaml, I did a quick Freshmeat search and came up with these. I do not know these programs, but after filtering out things that I considered "trivial" (language bindings, wrappers for other things, etc), I determined that each of these constitutes a non-trivial application. By the looks of each project, they each also appear to be maintained by multiple contributors, and are the kinds of programs that one would use every day. * http://home.gna.org/cameleon/ * http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~stse/javac/ * http://www.mldonkey.org/ * http://www.drugphish.ch/~jonny/cca.html * http://www.mtasc.org/ > This list is *not* about "hypothetical discussions". As far as Then, I would like to suggest that you clamp down on EVERYONE who even dares ask a what-if or wouldn't-it-be-nice question, regardless of the topic. I note that this is not the first time that you've responded to me in such a manner since I've been on this list, that you have singled ME out and slammed me for going off on a tangent, no matter how far. And, yet, others on this list do not seem to get the same treatment. > I know no core developer is planning on writing/rewriting any tools in > Forth (which when suggested put a smile on my face :-), OCaml, Haskel, > or whatever. That's fine. Nobody said that they should. And, nobody expects anyone else to bend to their chosen languages either. What was being discussed was, IN THE EVENT of a ground-up rewrite, what language would you choose, and why? At least, that is how I interpreted the discussion. I mean, even now, there is a dialog about C++ versus other languages. Why is this so relevant? My theory is that it's relevant *ONLY* because GCC ships with a C++ compiler as well as a C compiler. The languages are fundamentally different, but because they're bundled together, you can kind of think of them as the same basic language. Yet, I had to install Scheme to get gEDA installed last time; none of my boxes had scheme environments by default. Some contributions are written in Perl -- none of my boxes had (a particularly recent) Perl installed by default (I'm a Python guy). True to form, nobody dares ask, "What language should I write this tool in?" That's fine. But what if someone DOES ask such a question (say, out of courtesy)? Will such a question be shot down on the basis of being so wildly off-topic that it's TABOO to discuss on the list? > However, if you are going to write an free software EDA tool in > any language (of your choice), then by all means, discuss here to your > heart's content (though geda-dev might be a better choice and it was > probably a better choice for my original post too, oops). Frankly, I feel so bad about this incident that I no longer have any plans to support gEDA development because of the way I felt I've been treated here. I no longer desire to contribute to, or even use, the project (I was planning on working on buses when it came time to draw up schematics for my Kestrel 2 project). Why should you care? Well, strictly speaking, you shouldn't -- it's my decision. But the fact remains that politicizing and playing favorites amongst the folks here will drive users AWAY from gEDA. I can clearly see the need to put your foot down on gEDA-dev. But on gEDA-users? I may not be a "core" developer of gEDA. But I *am* a developer of other things. You just don't see them. I was just offering my input, based on my experience with the languages and tools that I've used, in the hopes that it might be useful to someone. If nobody cares about OCaml or Haskell, that's fine. I wasn't even proposing that anyone change languages; by "casting my vote," I was just saying how I would do something if it were up to me. There CANNOT possibly be any harm in THAT, can there? A discussion that should have taken two, maybe three messages, has now exploded into me effectively standing trial for my contribution. In all honesty, I really do feel that I'm being singled out. -- Samuel A. Falvo II _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user