Mail Archives: geda-user/2012/10/27/11:36:44
"Modernizing" the user interface would break the tool for people like
me who are already using it.
If you what to help the project finish the doxygen documentation in
gEDA and start doing it on PCB. It is not as glamorous as the problems
of back annotation or 3D component modeling that seem to be recurring
topics here but it will help the project. It will also make the
project more alive and hence attractive to new developers who might
miss judge it as stale.
I don't mean to be rude but I don't see this discussion leading to
anything at the moment. If people are going to be typing let them type
documentation.
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Markus Hitter <mah AT jump-ing DOT de> wrote:
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
--
Home
http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/
Work
http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/
- Raw text -