C/C++ is not an issue. Actually DJ and others have long wanted to make the code of PCB more C++ in feel.
I'm pleased to know they are interested in C++. Many projects are too old-school and hate OOP.
A larger fight inside of gEDA is Scheme and Python. We have an optional alternative netlister in the next release that adds python as a dependency which has been controversial.
I did see that alternative netlister as a very interesting project. Unfortunately, some conservative people attached him.
I don't understand that Python vs Scheme fight. I think Scheme may be a good programming language, but not an easy one. Python is easier and a lot more widely used.
KiCad people have been working about improving Python scripting:
https://github.com/KiCad/kicad-python[quote author=ScribblesOnNapkins link=topic=50684.msg757233#msg757233 date=14425123EDA
As to your thoughts about the other issues regarding parallels to office suites, file formatting and etc. You are obviously a smart person but you need more experience in the guts of a CAD program to understand the scope of some things.
[/quote]
Despite TDF has a lot more resources than most known FOSS electronics software, they are always blaming about the lack of resources. A reason their mathematical part lacks some stuff send due to that and not being a mainstream demand. Real geeks seem to use LaTeX for that.
I have tons of stuff to understand, not just CAD/CAE/EDA stuff
I fail to understand the scope of too many things, this one too. Are there some article, paper it document explaining it in some way?
KiCAD took a very different approach on a number of levels that make our codebases very different in architecture. I am not making a judgement here. gEDA's architecture has some things I don't care for too. Blending the two would be a larger project than ether of them individually.
I hope this doesn't end in something similar to Linus Vs. Tanenbaum. You know what I mean. Everyone losses at the end.
What are those architecture differences? Are there at least some overall comparison about them?
Are the involved parties so stubborn to be unable to reach a rational and reasonable consensus? That's a big problem of humanity, but I hope ACTIVE people on both parties get able to reach some kind of agreement someday.
I understand it might be a titanical task to do, but I think it would improve the FOSS EDA ecosystem in a very exponential way.
gEDA even uses GNU Triangulation Surface library (GTS), an unmaintained project since years. Someone said the software is "complete, but other said: " Probably not. Triangular meshes are surprisingly tricky and current
version 0.7.6 does not suggest stability. There seems to be a lot more maintained alternatives. I'm not sure about features, but they seem we powerful:
http://www.cgal.orghttp://www.openmesh.orghttp://www.salome-platform.orghttps://github.com/tpaviot/oceThe Document Foundation is a good example *now*. They had a lot of internal struggles early on.
SUN managed the project in an awful way. Oracle bought it and they did distrust the new owner even not than SUN.
The fight made possible the LibreOffice fork. Oracle responded in an hostile way because they really hate FOSS even more than SUN (do you remember about CDDL controversy).
After the OOo debacle and the fork started to surpass the original, Oracle and IBM " donated" their code to Apache.
Fortunately SUN used a copyleft license instead their CDDL trap (incompatible with GPL) license in OOpenOffice
They relicensed to the propietary-friendly Apache License clearly as a marketing strategy and probably use it as a cheap coding resource for their property derivatives and promote Java (Apache Foundation? They're more of a Java and BSD-like licenses) but finally LibreOffice won in an extreme way and Apache Office is now just a known zombie just some stubborn users still use.
I'm sure there were a lot more problems than that. But if they succeeded, I have hopes on this.