Re: gEDA-user: How to deal with single/dual parts?

[John Doty <jpd@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 20, 2009, at 2:51 PM, Steven Michalske wrote:

>
> On Nov 20, 2009, at 7:15 AM, Stuart Brorson wrote:
>
>> As an alternative to scheme, some would prefer to see TCL.  I have no
>> problem with that, as long as the interpreter is built-in.  However,
>> there is a large installed base of scheme, so it's likely we're stuck
>> with it.
>
>
> I propose that the scripting languages be plugins.

Difficult. The scripting language has a strong influence on the  
scripting API.

>
> that way we can use the language that we know best.
>
> Yes, I could learn scheme or TCL,  but I already know bash, perl,
> python, fourth, and basic

We could pretty easily layer a BASIC or Logo atop Scheme. Way back in  
1977, Bob Frankston implemented ECD BASIC atop a stripped-down Lisp  
engine. I maintained it from 1979-1981 after Bob moved on to his next  
project (VisiCalc). It was pretty simple (it fit in something like  
16k bytes). ECD BASIC complied with the Dartmouth spec, but data  
objects were actually lists, so you could easily represent complex  
data structures as needed.

But what is it about engineers that I hear constantly "I don't want  
to learn..." from them? So unprofessional. For something complex and  
obfuscated, the time factor comes in, but Scheme is one of the  
simplest programming languages there is.

>
> And before anyone starts complaining about dependency hell,  my answer
> to you will be get a Mac. Oh, and these are plugins.

Huh? Now you seem to be talking about scripting at the command line  
level. Nothing special about the Mac there. But we use Scheme for  
*embedded* scripting within the gEDA tools. Different.

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd@xxxxxxxxx




_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user