X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-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=6gsZq0THQQ3hdEb6/zQ5Qemw0Vlzbog4JIClm0tJkz4=;
	b=jE9phxaE5u1WzseXe594+FmvfHDWNz8RK8LG4KhIoVFVL6rcyvujCSb0pXm2kDoL4a
	4WqdnoA737pOyGgCYMlGZvW2T0187f4Hx8JeQ/gOa/xrVBUGoM25qTvmZYjfaiuNMbhv
	vzzWNoU7HOxUekzrBHzTQK2Bt0cJbSPHHTd+kzqXjrRnS7nmjv5vSnH6VzeLRLqtx/DG
	Flv+IuA3awN5ge9KgBQ44ohuFEceIKoGBuXFS7bM46g97I7KLPPan7N+NifljGdJXsnd
	PfxmeNTGtDo5KyJx42NAr+xaHQTr7CVjLdEt2DMMiPPbISsQ755OTE5r8NfAy6pPLivn
	k90g==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.112.190.10 with SMTP id gm10mr6475418lbc.2.1433977698549;
	Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<CAOP4iL1ZpiydVs200YEOnhxxdvnwRyWDtnjeXZHK3+BFH+ZSiQ@mail.gmail.com>
References:	<CAM2RGhRevQRT_unv2jZs0GYPUtQLy1-BpxhgMfXFY4NseSfFbw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAOP4iL1ZpiydVs200YEOnhxxdvnwRyWDtnjeXZHK3+BFH+ZSiQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Jun 2015 23:08:18 +0000
Message-ID:	<CAM2RGhS3GjWzpnyRNG149z1bs=YofNhO6y2Av2fNBvwVMPt==Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Interchange formats
From:	"Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com)" <geda-user AT delorie 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

Britton,

STEP is to mechanical CAD
as
Gerber is to electrical CAD

Nice but minus a lot of the meta data that the CAD software originally
carried. Could you write something that automatically converts a
Gerber back to separate traces and footprints? The mechanical people
have the same problem only worse because of how rounding errors can
subtly change the dimensions of stuff.

Because of the issues around this brlcad are now migrating to a method
where they natively support more formats.


On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Ouabache Designworks
(z3qmtr45 AT gmail DOT com) <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com)
> <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>>
>> For those of us who are not as well versed in our history of this
>> subject. I would like to know why so many common EDA formats have
>> failed?
>
>
> Well EDIF and IP_XACT both failed because while they have seen wide adoption
> the standards were loose enough that every vendor adopted their own slighty
> different "Flavors" of the standard. Unless you went to the effort to read
> in all known flavors then you couldn't read in other vendors files. This was
> compounded by the fact that
> our industry keeps growing and the tools get new features that need new data
> base objects.
>
> A better approach might be to look at the standards that have succeeded and
> figure out why. Jtag has been around for 20 years and is still quite
> healthy. They did not begin by releasing one huge standard, They started
> with 1149.1 that simply covered the bare bones minimun that everyone had to
> follow. As new features were needed they would add them in a new dot level.
> They are currently up to 1149.7.
>
> John Eaton
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



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

- Raw text -