X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Tue, 7 Jul 2015 17:56:55 +0200 (CEST)
X-X-Sender:	igor2 AT igor2priv
To:	"Ouabache Designworks (z3qmtr45 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
X-Debug:	to=geda-user AT delorie DOT com from="gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu"
From:	gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive?
In-Reply-To:	<CAOP4iL2C_LU=RQy5FWYF-7RrHW6tqhqqyFJGjkwLQ2AD7FiYJA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1507071749560.6924@igor2priv>
References:	<1435510363 DOT 682 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <20150703030409 DOT 32398 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> <CAFC5WMoa2-z6bNca_bQN+jmMR260UBmoJQybUzH=L2TrBpzNNA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <1436006726 DOT 677 DOT 13 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <20150706200609 DOT GD24178 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
	<CAC4O8c9f0pLsLu_dyuO5ggh7RmHY1vAA=UUhk9AE0JYZb4mhBQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAM2RGhQfPO31-1Uyc3kC7w286r0VD7c41UZEZcyYquzknCxbsQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20150707060409 DOT GB14357 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <CAOP4iL2C_LU=RQy5FWYF-7RrHW6tqhqqyFJGjkwLQ2AD7FiYJA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
User-Agent:	Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version:	1.0
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

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--0-153393469-1436284615=:6924
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE



On Tue, 7 Jul 2015, Ouabache Designworks (z3qmtr45 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-use=
r AT delorie DOT com] wrote:

>
>Rather than concentrating on what we don't like, I wonder if anyone can
>point to a FOSS Eda tool out there that you do like. What did they do righ=
t

<snip>

My favorite EDA tool is gEDA and PCB. Among with many others, for these=20
reasons:

>
>
>have changed a lot since the 1980's and some things that we did back then=
=20
>no longer work. One example is search paths. If you look in the default

I love that things are simple 80's stuff. For me search paths are easy to=
=20
understand and maintain. They don't always work out of the box, but it's=20
easy to fix them.

>
>gEDA currently defines a dot_sch schematic file and a dot_sym symbol file =
as
>our interchange formats. These are read into gschem and stored in some
>internal data structure that gschem manipulates before it is written out i=
n=C2=A0
>a save operation. Why not use a FOSS data base instead of internal memory?=
=C2=A0

And this is another major reason: I love the idea that there is no=20
database involved and things are just files on my system, for the same=20
above reason. Maybe this wouldn't scale well if I wanted to have 10=20
million symbols - but really, I am not even sure about that. Anyway in the=
=20
scale I work, I'd have 100x more problems with a database.

>If PCB also used the same database then cross probing and back annotation
>become easier.

This is a good point too: I love how gschem and PCB are _not_ tied=20
together. I indeed miss back annotation, but I do not miss any shared=20
database thing between gschem and PCB.

You can call simplicity and separate tools 80's technology, I'm fine with=
=20
that. I also realize that if you want to target the most common enginner=20
of the 21st century he will miss databases and more integration. But is it=
=20
really worth rolling out an N+1th EDA of the same kind? I vote for keeping=
=20
these unique featres of gschem as they are.

Regards,

Igor2
--0-153393469-1436284615=:6924--

- Raw text -