Gnucash and guile's dependencies caused one person to
have to give up on his Debian installation which had
been running flawlessly for years!
http://www.anchordesk.co.uk/anchordesk/commentary/columns/0,2415,7108356-2,00.html
___
gnucash-devel mailing l
How come I can't scroll the help window while
I've got the 'new account' window open?
It's most inconvenient.
- Dan
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gnumatic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Patrick Spinler wrote:
> I've been interested in this field for some time. I'd probably try to
> leverage something like the greg framework
> (http://freshmeat.net/projects/greg) which is already in guile. :-)
I forgot to mention: yes, if you can use greg, that would be great.
- Dan
___
Robert Graham Merkel wrote:
>
> Dan Kegel writes:
> > Could something similar be done for gnucash? Would it help
> > make crash bugs less likely?
>
> One of the problems with that is that the majority of crashes seem to
> come from GUI code. Writing test scrip
Bill Gribble wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 03:56:54PM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
> > i.e. can I script the import of two qif files and check to make sure
> > the result is correct?
>
> The big problem with testing qif import right now is that there's no
> tot
Forgive my ignorance, but does gnucash have regression tests
in its build process? i.e. can I script the import of two
qif files and check to make sure the result is correct?
- Dan
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gnumatic.co
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> It's been rumoured that Paul Lussier said:
> >
> > Can you define "spun out of control"?
>
> Teach me to be sloppy with euphemisms, I didn't mean to imply
> something negative, the changes have all been positive.
> Using the sheme/guile lang. is a good thing.
Linas
buggy,
> crashes a lot, and has trouble playing nice with others.
> I've always been intrigued by the fact that the (vast?) majority
> of the open source community have stayed away from java, even
> as large chunks of the rest of the programming world flocked to it.
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A view of the history and consideration of some practical matters may
> shed some light.
It did, thanks.
> -- Even if all the gnucash scheme coders died tommorrow, there's
> so much scheme code that it would be a massive undertaking to
> re-write it.
>
> --
Christopher Browne wrote:
> Frankly, it's utterly unimportant if there are thousands of people out
> there in "Internet-Land" that think Scheme is a ludicrous choice if, in
> contrast, the core developers of GnuCash _all_ happen to like Scheme.
> If the latter fact is true [and if not directly tru
Dan Kegel wrote:
> Now I'm reading about car, cdr, caar, cddr, cadr, cdar, and the like.
> How nice that all the keywords of the language are so intuitive and high-level,
> uninfluenced by the hardware the language originally ran on.
Forgot the URL for the origin story of those k
Ariel Rios wrote:
>
> > I think this is a little bit disingenuous. Nobody outside the
> > gnucash-devel list is requiring gnucash to use Scheme, least of all
> > RMS; in point of fact, hardly any GNU projects actually use Scheme
> > anyway, despite several years of drum-beating to get it to happ
Eugene Tyurin wrote:
>
> Many years ago (circa 1988) I remember briefly trying out some
> package called Texas Instruments' Scheme. Back then I thought it
> looked like a dialect of Lisp with some additional system and GUI
> toolkits.
>
> Is that "The Scheme" we're talking about?
S
Al Snell wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Dan Kegel wrote:
> > On the other hand, perhaps you folks are using "ability to program Scheme"
> > in the same way Linus is using "ability to debug kernel problems without
> > a kernel debugger", i.e. as an IQ
James LewisMoss wrote:
> >> > Requiring that all high-level Gnucash code be in Scheme might be
> >> > restricting the number of developers able to contribute to it.
> >> Why?
>
> Dan> Because there are very few people who know how to program in
> Dan> Scheme compared to the number of people
Ariel Rios wrote:
>
> > Because there are very few people who know how to program in Scheme
> > compared to the number of people who know how to program in C, C++, Java, or Perl.
> Basically your argument is: "Scheme is bad for there are not many
> programmers".
Nope, not saying Scheme is bad.
Ariel Rios wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Dan Kegel wrote:
>
> > I'm sure this has been discussed a zillion times but I'd like to bring it up again:
> >
> > Requiring that all high-level Gnucash code be in Scheme might be
> > restricting the number of
I'm sure this has been discussed a zillion times but I'd like to bring it up again:
Requiring that all high-level Gnucash code be in Scheme might be
restricting the number of developers able to contribute to it.
Here's a few quotes from the web in support of that theory
(found by searching for
18 matches
Mail list logo
