Mail Archives: geda-user/2012/10/27/06:16:19
Am 27.10.2012 um 01:36 schrieb John Doty:
> On Oct 26, 2012, at 4:51 PM, Markus Hitter wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Why is that winning? As far as I'm concerned, the tool that gets
> the job done wins.
Fritzing wins, because those people doing their first projects with
Fritzing will never even try with gEDA. And if they do, they'll run
away the same minute, because they can't even rotate an item. That
simple.
And yes, I've seen that many times. gEDAs awkward user interface /
mouse button mapping / inconsistent behaviour is about the biggest
complaint I receive when asking people to participate in projects I
maintain.
> A fine example of the problem is LyX, ...
And because LyX made a mistake you assume gEDA inevitably has to make
the same mistake? For my part, I consider gEDA developers to be more
intelligent. So far I'm proven right, for example the direct
schematics import, which is a step of integration, works without
hobbling script users.
>> 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.
>
> Well, I *do* care about that kind of consistency. Aerospace
> projects take a long time, and I have a decade of gEDA schematics
> that I reuse.
Again you do the assumption modernizing the user interface would make
your older designs unusable. There's no reason for this assumption.
The mapping of mouse buttons is 100% independent from the file
format. The file format is also 100% independent from the size of the
window used for viewing it or wether this window is shared for both,
gschem and pcb.
> It's less likely that a transcendental genius will appear who can
> accomplish what I think you want step by step, fighting the
> architecture and legacy flows all the way.
Same as above. Assumptions without substance. Nobody is fighting
working with legacy data.
In fact, the introduction of holes in polygons has brought us
compatibility with older file formats. Before, files were tagged with
a 2010something version number, now designs without polygon holes are
flagged with version 20070407.
There you go. A new feature actually *increased* compatibility with
legacy stuff.
Markus
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter
http://www.jump-ing.de/
- Raw text -