Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/07/13/23:54:47
On Jul 13, 2015, at 9:14 PM, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
>> If the wad of lines is too dense to follow without confusion, what
>> good is it?
>
> If the wad of lines is too dense to follow, you've failed as a
> designer.
Yes. But how do you avoid that when you have 16 channels of data converging on a connector?
> I've seen the dense wad of lines. I've seen engineers dump
> a design and start from scratch because it was "just a wad of dense
> lines" and come up with something much more understandable but just as
> complex.
>
>>> Because not everyone wants to do things your way.
>>
>> You're pushing graphics, but then you want tables in gschem, a
>> graphics tool. Make up your mind.
>
> You're playing with semantics to argue your point. I've made up my
> mind - I want small tables of related information on the same page as
> the symbolic information, just like others might want text blocks,
> images, simulation outputs, test data, pin numbers, or other relevant
> information.
You want an integrated tool, not a toolkit. You’ve come to the wrong place. There are 100 tools that you can use to make tables. Gschem is not one if them. This is a very good thing.
>
> It's not about graphics vs text. It's about putting related useful
> information in a form that conveys design intent.
>
There are tools that are good at this, e.g. LaTeX. Use them.
I have lately had a number of people reviewing my schematic designs. I also have several testing them. The latest review committee praised my LaTeX documentation. Nobody has complained about the tables. The common complaint is that hierarchical schematics are hard to understand. But when I ask them if 80 pages of flat schematics for one board would be better, the answer is always “no”.
John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com
- Raw text -