Re: gEDA-dev: New diagram (attempt at UML)

[John Doty <jpd-at-NOSPAMwispertel_dot_net>]

On Apr 11, 2007, at 1:26 PM, al davis wrote:

> On Wednesday 11 April 2007 14:55, John Doty wrote:
>
>> PL/I was once touted as a great improvement over Fortran, but
>> it never really made it.
>
> PL/I was successful beyond expectations.  It spawned C, C++,
> Java, and many others.

Yeah, but those of us who actually tried using it found it a hard way  
to get work done. Using PL/I did nothing for C. We had to wait for  
Ritchie's genius to show us the way forward.

>
>> I'd love a better simulator than
>> SPICE, but "better" means it helps get the work done faster
>> and more accurately, not some abstraction.
>
> You say you do, but you act like you don't.  Free software
> doesn't have investors that are willing to finance it for the
> years it takes to get ready.  With free software, the investors
> are people who are willing to work with the developers on the
> way there.  I'm sorry that you choose not to be among them.

I haven't made any choice. I understand contributing to free  
software: the Calay gnetlist back end is mine, and I've published a  
GPL implementation of a stripped-down Forth dialect that has been  
very successful at controlling astronomical instruments. And if this  
year is as successful as last I'll have some money to contribute, too.

But I have to see some purpose to the effort. Is gnucap moving in a  
direction that is *practical*? I'm not a corporate manager who wants  
bullets for his powerpoint: I want something that will help me do  
astrophysics. I use gEDA because, in the end, it is very practical  
for the things I do.

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
jpd@noqsi.com




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