Mail Archives: geda-user/2012/12/14/20:04:44
10+ years ago I read pcb-yyyymmdd.pdf and then started drawing pcbs.
I didn't use gschem, and still do only rarely. I don't use half of
the gEDA workflow and I really don't care. :) Feel free to <insert
violent emotional word> me for that.
I started with only simple things. I figured out how to create
footprints (or are they called elements? Sorry DJ, I almost forgot
the difference already, maybe we should rename Element in .fp files
to Footprint to make things more clear..) and I figured out how to
draw lines (F2) and vias (F1). :) I've made a bunch of PCBs with only
that knowledge.
If making PCBs was my single main focus then I would have invested
time to learn much more of the tools. I enjoy learning new bits and
pieces of the tools as I spend more time using them.
John Doty wrote:
> In pcb you cannot do anything simple,
I agree with various other things you've written, but I disagree with
this, I think the simplest task is to draw lines between components
on a board, and drawing lines is rather straightforward. Click the
line button, click on the canvas to start, see where the line goes,
click to make corners, hit ESC (maybe right click) to stop the line.
I also think that it's very straightforward to create footprints.
It's popular to use scripts, but I actually create most of mine
manually. Sometimes tedious, but I do "get to know" the footprint
well.
> and you cannot deconstruct complexity to understand it.
Hm, what are some examples of complexity?
> Complex objects are not constructed of simple objects.
Hm? Footprints are constructed of pins, pads, and lines.
> There are no simple objects.
Hm? I think of at least lines, pins, pads and vias as simple objects.
> Object properties are immutable and inscrutable.
Hm? For "my" objects that's not true, I can change e.g. size of stuff
with a keypress, names with another, and I can move things around
by clicking and dragging them around.
> Normally, I'd figure I was "fighting the paradigm", slap myself a
> few times, and get on with it. But there isn't a paradigm I can
> recognize here.
Can you tell more about what you think of as simple and complex
objects? I'm curious to understand your mental model of pcb.
Thanks
//Peter
- Raw text -