X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=mail.ud03.udmedia.de; h=
	mime-version:in-reply-to:references:content-type:message-id
	:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to; s=beta; bh=gWbD
	s2DYB0otpKWgUCTpPHy0ll55K9v6yko+gYdVx4Q=; b=NEQxIiXH5AWrNdcz8BT8
	1s95hco6hHfw266mbndAtPuUsUoE4p+MdfCRyWH5x9zeqC5T34JHXx9GgOb8VdVg
	t5XvQP22jdrUoxxobzf3Ilrz1gilkQk1dvHsVWpvVXgR5ZguJkpHETyuktE7vha1
	gsAjitke410satz6csM7NG4=
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1)
In-Reply-To: <E9D200C7-475C-4CC7-A592-5A6C14B3EA25@noqsi.com>
References: <CANqhZFxYH+Y5U1ai7ey-s+4nz6eYDM2vx3aMDb7WuigNXmi4AQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <2CB304B5-9587-4734-84E4-49F464744D11 AT noqsi DOT com> <CANqhZFwPNG4R1dR2X0HB+tP1JzNXUAVg55gy54Lry5E49aAQ6Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <E9D200C7-475C-4CC7-A592-5A6C14B3EA25 AT noqsi DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <6BF2E986-51EB-41E9-A4AD-8071CD00B1A1@jump-ing.de>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Markus Hitter <mah AT jump-ing DOT de>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] The state of gEDA/gaf (Was gEDA/PCBs diversity, Was: Pin hole size)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:20:03 +0200
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1)
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
Precedence: bulk


Am 26.10.2012 um 17:39 schrieb John Doty:

> It seems to me that gschem and gnetlist have reached a state of  
> near perfection within their architectural limitations.

Except their usage is confusing enough to make them a science on  
their own. If there weren't helpers like xgsch2pcb or the recent  
direct schematics import I couldn't encourage people to use gEDA.  
Competitors like Fritzing are so much easier and more intuitive to use.

> I can see somebody writing a new schematic editor using 21st  
> century GUI conventions, but it wouldn't be gschem, it would be a  
> new development.

And how does that stop gschem moving to 21st GUI conventions, too?  
Currently we have ridiculous situations like that pcb and gschem  
can't even agree on the same mouse button for panning/zooming. Much  
less on other usage items. Arguments like "that's the most powerful  
way" - which actually means "I'm used to this" - can't be right for  
both.

What I simply do not get is why so many gEDA users literally insist  
on gEDA's GUI being non-conformant to any other GUI tool out there.  
Or where else have you seen a tool which requires typing "e" and "r"  
in that order to rotate an item?

We agree gEDA's strength is it's clean text file format. Because it's  
hand-editable, because it's easily scriptable. Now please explain how  
a simple file format enforces complex, unintuitive, hard to learn  
GUIs for editing them visually.


Thanks,
Markus

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter
http://www.jump-ing.de/