X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-TCPREMOTEIP:	207.224.51.38
X-Authenticated-UID:	jpd AT noqsi DOT com
Mime-Version:	1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive?
From:	John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<5592ABB1.7090404@plastitar.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:24:36 -0600
Message-Id:	<724860AC-6174-478A-AFD9-A1B117161F58@noqsi.com>
References:	<1435510363 DOT 682 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <55902AB9 DOT 9000004 AT neurotica DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1506281932040 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv> <20150629113018 DOT GH19654 AT fi DOT muni DOT cz> <1435581145 DOT 1447 DOT 19 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <CAOFvGD7npho6fPKAEmce6L1nXy=5EEsVaEH-Vj_XEuiLddodDA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20150630083528 DOT GY19654 AT fi DOT muni DOT cz> <1435666431 DOT 676 DOT 13 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <CAM2RGhQ75UcoEoz4zeEcyEShj+8C8ACJj4-iB7F1r+jyy+bUvw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <5833A5F3-C17B-409D-A3B3-553F9DCFEAC5 AT noqsi DOT com> <5592ABB1 DOT 7090404 AT plastitar DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer:	Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id t5UFOlpv006684
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

On Jun 30, 2015, at 8:46 AM, P. Taylor <phil AT plastitar DOT com> wrote:

> On 6/30/2015 10:19 AM, John Doty wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 2015, at 7:59 AM, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com)<geda-user AT delorie DOT com>  wrote:
>> 
>>> >John Doty : In the name of a more open workflow I was advocating PCB
>>> >changing/adding TSV as an accepted input format for the other
>>> >attributes I was suggesting. The idea being to break out of the
>>> >workflow issues you see in PCB.
>>> >
>> Wouldn’t help in the least bit. The core issue with PCB is that it has no coherent model of what a PCB is: it’s just a grab bag of “features” with no foundation.
> 
> John,
> 
> I always enjoy hearing your outspoken comments on geda/PCB.  But isn't the indeterminate nature of PCB a good thing?

No. I find it incomprehensible. A good tool would construct complex objects out of simpler ones, with trivially simple objects at the bottom. But PCB can’t do that: it’s just a mess of special-purpose hacks that interact in peculiar and confusing ways. This makes PCB very rigid and difficult to use.

>  It's abstract _and_ it works for practical physical design.  And its easy to hack and hotwire for different situations.
> 
> The foundation is clearly there: it's the code and the file formats.  It works and that's why we like it.
> 
> There are highly determinate commercial offerings.

A well-founded PCB would be less determinate, as geda-gaf is.

>  Yet PCB is the maximum software attainable by a small number of uncoordinated programmers, particularly when one considers that there are different desires and philosophies constantly at odds.

Geda-gaf shows that the best cure for these problems is a clean, simple foundation. Geda-gaf constructs circuits from simple primitives that can be arbitrarily combined with few restrictions. Because of this, it can support PCB and many other flows (other layout tools, simulation, ASIC, even plumbing!).

> 
> Phil Taylor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com

- Raw text -