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=0t32iP4Rt/1i0TMK74/dJeofu7P60DtKgFfUOgrMdd0=;
	b=LQe3rZdjo9yN2vRCc7kffvulIIwN/rRAWPrZ90AoyycsSNZLgk6Kcx4QaZCmPxyC/L
	1SJlldBVKAvL/6sNBFzKrZXNUy9JgL8D2DpyOO0z4Lu0oVqliThJRp/r2Zrgtqd0RDPB
	SOxN6Gtfgex/0iaInO5iJq/VjsPKTqSGfBbDkFSkcsYQbW+U+1L2JMv8KK9a3KXBxHG8
	mQYhpjP6oE+4CVoGvKju7SDwwxJJsssAn8GSSRwaDFXpyZ1xO39C+cCmlKN5M8qzJvgy
	2u2oUcqhPYwmRx8PcBZiG0NQIw1ZFjJUCd/LjQjx+244PvOPcdn2F+vdyy194ohGxDSF
	yEZw==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.152.27.197 with SMTP id v5mr4746073lag.64.1436285116334;
	Tue, 07 Jul 2015 09:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<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>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1507071749560 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv>
Date:	Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:05:16 -0400
Message-ID:	<CAM2RGhRA9Qt_PNUNzvaZ7OjjKDvrWobCJ2CptFYhBojtbxXXCA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive?
From:	"Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie 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

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 11:56 AM,  <gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2015, Ouabache Designworks (z3qmtr45 AT gmail DOT com) [via
> geda-user 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
>> right
>
>
> <snip>
>
> My favorite EDA tool is gEDA and PCB. Among with many others, for these
> reasons:

We are all being critical because we are trying to find the reason
development/interest has slowed.

>>
>>
>> have changed a lot since the 1980's and some things that we did back then
>> 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
> understand and maintain. They don't always work out of the box, but it's
> 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
>> in
>> a save operation. Why not use a FOSS data base instead of internal memory?
>
>
> And this is another major reason: I love the idea that there is no database
> involved and things are just files on my system, for the same above reason.
> Maybe this wouldn't scale well if I wanted to have 10 million symbols - but
> really, I am not even sure about that. Anyway in the scale I work, I'd have
> 100x more problems with a database.

Databases can be trouble when it comes to some of the workflows people use.

>> 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 together.
> I indeed miss back annotation, but I do not miss any shared database thing
> between gschem and PCB.

The Unix mentality these are all independent tools that we choose to
combined this way. Most people have avoided binding them via a
database because they want to keep things separate.

> You can call simplicity and separate tools 80's technology, I'm fine with
> that. I also realize that if you want to target the most common enginner of
> the 21st century he will miss databases and more integration. But is it
> really worth rolling out an N+1th EDA of the same kind? I vote for keeping
> these unique featres of gschem as they are.
>
> Regards,
>
> Igor2



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

- Raw text -