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=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type;
	bh=TlPz3K9X/96OD3RawI38TEDGnarEGvEsAss+74kxWO0=;
	b=P56BWv+uoPEf6+y63nXBBwkwdiFQDSqKwnEj1XGA8fdsVnpFn8tcOehBwOH0tbm6SY
	VRtnHRxKs0IWVGFN5jQt2d7ZQCz79zwxh25TL1Gh+HRcaRY6Z67J9gHKBDzahGinbx27
	4j/KQ/1VwFbFpitzaIwHWI9b3gPm3ZS0Hi0dhJ/LneepCSWBGaG49lSy+gNUgDb2nwmF
	2pp5j8Vr1VdrF/D1hmo70K2/sclcP6mnXC27xXLdl5StsjEOOJLOnY6wa80RH6KQ8Tpu
	3YtwLLnMmzxascF3ukI5fLWOIvhRfmzImWOKpCJgcoUkrg2IsWocOkeu/3WLlZU7tNDz
	1AIw==
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<50A8675D.30509@neurotica.com>
References:	<50A688B8 DOT 4090809 AT neurotica DOT com>
	<CC923058-B962-45B5-973D-EA03906430B9 AT noqsi DOT com>
	<50A6A265 DOT 6050300 AT neurotica DOT com>
	<4E8E6F31-EF8D-4540-BA86-7935C1C3E6D8 AT noqsi DOT com>
	<50A6A95C DOT 5030903 AT neurotica DOT com>
	<355DEF4F-51BB-44A8-A5F4-D8564E7E7885 AT noqsi DOT com>
	<20121116213601 DOT 13718 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se>
	<66889AAB-3A82-4861-ACB0-B35A876EF6F4 AT noqsi DOT com>
	<CAC4O8c8s3837dD5so1hu-QOm8PW69sehVNNX7njQvnRGzXODGw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<B63F900B-2C12-48A4-AD4B-5A616078030B AT noqsi DOT com>
	<CAC4O8c9BAJe8_7KLL8aaGq30HCkj+q74DB9jywXRXogJzdqNzw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<50A83AAA DOT 6060500 AT jump-ing DOT de>
	<B1A7C9C1-5EAE-49AB-A03A-D5D4AFD3B0C0 AT noqsi DOT com>
	<50A8615E DOT 2080800 AT neurotica DOT com>
	<05730E0F-4DA1-47C8-80BB-5D4F37EFD94E AT noqsi DOT com>
	<50A8675D DOT 30509 AT neurotica DOT com>
Date:	Sun, 18 Nov 2012 00:17:18 -0500
Message-ID:	<CAM2RGhQ7aZf_yiOw4ibKTe5RnH7p8W50Maqo1YrVnLbJuhX-1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Thoughts on gschem UI
From:	Evan Foss <evanfoss AT gmail DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
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

I would like to butt in here with my opinion. I have a few minor minor
gripes I have with gschem like the inability to do 45 degree rotation
of symbols but I really don't care to see gschem change massively. It
works very well even if it looks a bit dated.

From my view point the rest of gEDA/PCB should change around gschem to
better use it and not the other way around. There is a lot of unused
metadata in a schematic that is yet unused and that is where most of
my frustrations with gEDA come from. This is why see issues with the
netlister. Following the Unix philosophy it does it's job providing a
netlist but that removes a lot of the schematics metadata that other
tools like PCB might want. For example which connections are a bus or
meant to be routed differentially? There are comments I leave on
schematics in gschem that I would like to be passed to PCB tools that
get removed because we only deal with netlists. I have been
contemplating for a while now writing something to be parallel in the
work flow with gnetlist to just handle this stuff. I view this as
working from gschem at the bottom up which is the opposite of the way
modern top down development process goes but I am curious to see an
opinion from the group.

-Evan

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Dave McGuire <mcguire AT neurotica DOT com> wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 11:35 PM, John Doty wrote:
>>>> If you had a BASIC interpreter and you wanted to change to
>>>> Python, you could fiddle with keywords and notation, maybe add a
>>>> few extra statements, and create something that looked vaguely
>>>> like Python. But it wouldn't really *be* Python. It's not
>>>> practical to change a BASIC interpreter into a Python interpreter
>>>> by patching it. Similarly, gschem isn't constructed the way you'd
>>>> construct a 21st century graphics application.
>>>
>>> You KEEP saying that.  Why is it important that everything conform
>>> to your idea of a "modern GUI"?
>>
>> It isn't important to *me* at all. I want stability. What I don't
>> want is chaos in the name of turning gschem into something more
>> modern. I'm trying to point out that this isn't trivial.
>
>   Understood.  And understandable.
>
>>> As I stated before, what constitutes a "modern GUI" will be
>>> different a few years from now, at least from the perspective of
>>> the unwashed masses.  At that time, will you demand that the suite
>>> be rewritten again, for the reason that it has somehow become
>>> useless because it's so "not a modern GUI application"?
>>
>> I'm the guy who is advocating caution here, remember? I'm asking that
>> gschem not be damaged, that any drastic change be in the context of a
>> new tool.
>
>   Ok.  So will you be writing this new tool?
>
>   If you plan to, I look forward to seeing it.  From the impression of
> your work style that I get from your posts, I'm guessing I'd probably
> like it.
>
>   If you're not planning on doing that, is it your desire that the
> current developers undertake this project?  That's fine too, but I think
> that, after treating them like this, they probably aren't too enthused
> about the idea.
>
>   Just sayin'..
>
>   So...where do you want this to go?
>
>               -Dave
>
> --
> Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
> New Kensington, PA



-- 
Home
http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/
Work
http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/

- Raw text -