On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:24 PM, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
>>> It implies that the person with this attitude
>>> doesn't want to learn, which is a terrible attitude for a practicing
>>> engineer.
>
> Diagnosing groups of users wholesale a terrible attitude is not very
> constructive.
Even more to the
On Nov 26, 2009, at 5:21 PM, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> I haven't been able to locate information on the way the C part of
> gnetlist is supposed to communicate with the scheme backends. Maybe
> I am
> just partially blind. Any pointers, short of "read the source"?
I've been compiling a list of
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:24:18 -0500, Stuart Brorson wrote:
> 2. Use as a language one can use to automate various actions in gschem.
> This is probably closer to the way Eagle users think about scripting
> Eagle.
>
> IMO, Scheme is an excellent language for use 1. Other languages aren't
> reall
On Nov 24, 2009, at 4:48 AM, Peter TB Brett wrote:
>>> Regular readers will recall that back in 2008 I had a stab at
>>> swapping
>>> Guile for TinyScheme. I came to the conclusion that if we used
>>> TinyScheme
>>> we'd be dooming ourselves to reimplementing half of Guile, badly.
>>
>>That
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:26:25 -0500, Dave McGuire
wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2009, at 4:45 AM, Peter TB Brett wrote:
>> Regular readers will recall that back in 2008 I had a stab at swapping
>> Guile for TinyScheme. I came to the conclusion that if we used
>> TinyScheme
>> we'd be dooming ourselves to
On Nov 23, 2009, at 4:45 AM, Peter TB Brett wrote:
> Regular readers will recall that back in 2008 I had a stab at swapping
> Guile for TinyScheme. I came to the conclusion that if we used
> TinyScheme
> we'd be dooming ourselves to reimplementing half of Guile, badly.
That sucks. :-(
Yo
Dave McGuire wrote:
>
>Scheme has been around for 35 years, and Lisp has been around for
> more than half a century. Will Python, as nice as it is, really be
> around in five decades? Three? I doubt it. And for the sake of the
> overall health of the computer science world, I sure hop
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 06:24:18PM -0500, Stuart Brorson wrote:
> > Why have we so much scheme in gEDA?
>
> IMO, if there is a problem with scripting in gEDA, the problem is that
> the guile developers (and not the Scheme language) have created
> problems for us repeatedly. Specifically, they hav
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:09:16 -0500, Dave McGuire
wrote:
> [snip]
>
> It's certainly much more practical to implement
> something like that if the high-level data structures are visible to
> the scripting language in their native representation.
I agree. Unfortunately, at the moment they ar
Hello all,
I'm trying to follow the list some time now and I feel I have to say
some thing about the ongoing discussion.
---
> Let me frown on this attitude again.
> Developers should never, ever think of users as dumb creatures whose
> feedback needs to
John Doty wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2009, at 3:06 PM, Peter Clifton wrote:
>> What really pains me - is that development has pretty much stagnated -
>> because we can't seem to get _anything_ new into the suite to help
>> provide basic functionality other packages take for granted.
>
> 1. gEDA is fundam
On Nov 22, 2009, at 9:24 PM, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
>>Agreed 100%. I don't want my tools dumbed-down because some of
>
> When it comes to scripting in geda, there is not much to dumb down in
> the first place.
I think gEDA is very scriptable. Look at the amazing stuff Karel
did with t
On Nov 22, 2009, at 7:24 PM, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:03:29 -0500, Dave McGuire wrote:
>
>> On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:24 PM, you wrote:
>>> 1. There are lots of folks who whine about learning another
>>> language.
>>> "I already know TCL, so why should I learn Scheme?" As
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:03:29 -0500, Dave McGuire wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:24 PM, you wrote:
>> 1. There are lots of folks who whine about learning another language.
>> "I already know TCL, so why should I learn Scheme?" As John Doty says,
>> this attitude stinks.
The very same John D. co
On Nov 22, 2009, at 7:03 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> PCB's scripting language is, of course, C :-)
>
> Most systems come with a script compiler called "gcc" too.
You're a mean, bad man. ;)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
___
geda-u
PCB's scripting language is, of course, C :-)
Most systems come with a script compiler called "gcc" too.
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
I've gotta jump in with my $0.02 here.
On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:24 PM, you wrote:
> 1. There are lots of folks who whine about learning another
> language. "I already know TCL, so why should I learn Scheme?" As
> John Doty says, this attitude stinks. It implies that the person with
> this att
> Why have we so much scheme in gEDA?
Back when Ales was architecting the gEDA suite, he make gschem the GUI
program which allowed one to draw a schematic. It only held the
concepts of graphical objects like line, arc, net segment, text, etc.
He created a separate program, gnetlist, which held a
18 matches
Mail list logo
