Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/07/13/03:44:15
First, I think gEDA and PCB need to be truly cross-platform:
* available as native applications on major platforms: Windows, Mac OS X, *nix/BSD, with standard installers for those systems (.exe, .dmg, .tgz)
* uses native widget set — non-native widgets just look inconsistent and ugly, IMHO.
* minimal dependencies and external baggage.
On 13 Jul 2015, at 01:18, Kai-Martin Knaak <kmk AT familieknaak DOT de> wrote:
>
> * make gschem scriptable in a widely known language.
> * make pcb scriptable in a widely known language. Preferably the same
> scripting language as for gschem.
I would say ‘familiar’ rather than ‘widely known’. It doesn’t really matter if it’s Python, Ruby, Lua, or even PERL (to some extent), any user familiar with one can easily switch to another with little effort. My only caveat is my point above about minimal dependencies, there’s no point choosing a language that calls in 50MB of dependencies — that’s why I prefer Lua, but I don’t want to start another war.
> And of course, my personal favorite:
>
> * the notion of "packages", a container format for all information on
> a component. E.g. symbol(s), footprint(s), value(s), spice model, 3D
> models, notes, data sheets, ...
Actually, that’s one of the things about Eagle I really dislike. I like separation between footprints and symbols.
In terms of features my only real gripe with gschem is its modal interface. I much prefer the ‘dockable windows’ approach, so when I click on an object it’s properties and attributes are immediately available for inspection and modification.
Regards,
Chris
—
Chris Smith <space DOT dandy AT icloud DOT com>
- Raw text -