Mail Archives: geda-user/2016/02/29/13:05:37
> > Hey, it's software, at least you *can* rewrite it to do anything. You
> > missed the message completely: It's *difficult* to do. Perhaps you
> > could put some effort into making it easier?
>
> There's a distinction between rewriting and scripting.
You missed my point completely. Any software can be, at the worst
case, rewritten to do anything else. Gschem can be rewritten to be a
video game. It's possible. It's *difficult*. Saying something is
"possible" is a weak excuse to not make it easier.
> Who are the target users?
At this point, I'd like to say we're targetting the people who are
already using gEDA and trying to make it work for them. People are
complaining and you're not listening.
It really sounds like you want the target users to be "John Doty" in
which case, fork the tools and go away.
> It used to be "anybody computer-literate who's using any tool that
> can read a netlist",
But the people who are trying to consume that netlist want the whole
process to be easier, and you aren't listening to them. Where is the
spice model database? Where is the osmond back-annotation tool?
You're using pcb as a whipping boy to avoid making the tools better
for everyone.
> Because I think there should be a toolkit for those of us who need
> the open-ended capability that the Unix philosophy leads to.
I agree, but why make that toolkit as difficult as possible for people
to use? Why can't you listen to the people who *want* to use the
toolkit, who are complaining that it's difficult to use?
> Imitating KiCAD is a dead end.
Bringing up the KiCAD strawman is yet another excuse.
> No, it's just like using an editor to create program source code, a
> page at a time. The editor is not responsible for the things that
> make, the compiler, and the linker do. That's good modularity.
Then your argument is that gschem is like the old "edlin" that ONLY
edits files, and leaves everything else - like search and replace - to
scripts, where people want something like emacs or vi that have syntax
highlighting and a robust basis for expansion. See? I can abuse a
metaphor too.
> But it's the cost of a
No, that's an exuse again. If you want a hard-to-use toolkit that
only the Supreme Chosen People can use, you won't find a willing flock
here. A toolkit can be flexible and extensible without being sparse
and obtuse.
> You want Word, I want LaTeX.
I want a schematic editor. You want a paint program.
- Raw text -