X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=mail.ud03.udmedia.de; h=
	mime-version:in-reply-to:references:content-type:message-id
	:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to; s=beta; bh=qzGo
	KmEjTvY1wLYYNU8gRHXDlZugQYwmCH7CJB6KTSc=; b=XjPdpNjX5HzvY+3ytoWF
	Pnl4QLPfOZJEWQYqpO+JTohLum8RT0Aqv5H2pd1m/OV3KXvPCl+49+CWi58cylOD
	QXZD5jdZzX5IQ9BM20Bi3YHR5MdxGtZ0gAgqII+HtrPSTMF4kd5tI/IYefL7Ay5d
	WKSxtUCW881YzaQwQobEEFo=
Mime-Version:	1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1)
In-Reply-To:	<834283D4-0891-486E-A981-2FF20B32C615@noqsi.com>
References:	<CANqhZFxYH+Y5U1ai7ey-s+4nz6eYDM2vx3aMDb7WuigNXmi4AQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <2CB304B5-9587-4734-84E4-49F464744D11 AT noqsi DOT com> <CANqhZFwPNG4R1dR2X0HB+tP1JzNXUAVg55gy54Lry5E49aAQ6Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <E9D200C7-475C-4CC7-A592-5A6C14B3EA25 AT noqsi DOT com> <6BF2E986-51EB-41E9-A4AD-8071CD00B1A1 AT jump-ing DOT de> <834283D4-0891-486E-A981-2FF20B32C615 AT noqsi DOT com>
Message-Id:	<C3C35AF4-24D1-4977-9134-2C0B13473D01@jump-ing.de>
From:	Markus Hitter <mah AT jump-ing DOT de>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] The state of gEDA/gaf (Was gEDA/PCBs diversity, Was: Pin hole size)
Date:	Sat, 27 Oct 2012 00:51:31 +0200
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer:	Apple Mail (2.753.1)
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

Am 26.10.2012 um 20:50 schrieb John Doty:

> On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:20 PM, Markus Hitter wrote:
>
>> Am 26.10.2012 um 17:39 schrieb John Doty:
>>
>>> It seems to me that gschem and gnetlist have reached a state of  
>>> near perfection within their architectural limitations.
>>
>> Except their usage is confusing enough to make them a science on  
>> their own. If there weren't helpers like xgsch2pcb or the recent  
>> direct schematics import I couldn't encourage people to use gEDA.  
>> Competitors like Fritzing are so much easier and more intuitive to  
>> use.
>
> That's the usual "I don't want a toolkit, but an integrated tool"  
> complaint. But Fritzing can't do most of the things that gEDA can.

Fritzing doesn't even try to be as detailed as gEDA. But Fritzing  
gets all the newbies, so in the end, Fritzing wins. Simple maths.

And you simply fail to explain how an integrated tool or a set of  
tools with consistent behaviour stops you from using your set of  
scripts. You apparently take it as a given, which is without substance.


> They are separate, independent tools with separate, independent  
> histories, both predating modern GUI conventions. Why would you  
> expect consistency here?

Who exactly is interested in the history of a tool? I use it today  
and I couldn't care less by whom and how it was used five years ago.

Getting both tools' mouse behaviour consistent is a matter of an hour  
or two, it just has to be done. But every time such things are  
attempted, some script users come around the corner and say basically  
"we did it wrong for 20 years, so I insist to continue doing it  
wrong!". Not exactly wise.

> And a new editor would be fine. A broken kludge based on gschem  
> would not.

OK. I take you can't imagine how this "shallow tool" can be put into  
the 21st century.

I'm pretty sure modernising gschem step by step is actually the only  
way to go, because this genius angel with a modern editor in his  
pocket won't fall off the sky.


Markus

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter
http://www.jump-ing.de/

- Raw text -