X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 03:07:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: mskala AT ansuz DOT sooke DOT bc DOT ca
X-X-Sender: mskala AT localhost DOT localdomain
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] SchemeIt
In-Reply-To: <CAM2RGhTRczF845GH+mcvwRoyOJ1Cj8d2UBBueF3KD=4yP7ah4g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.02.1410190238160.18702@localhost.localdomain>
References: <CAGRhJMZgn5YojUcGKR+nEj6bPWjKmff4ykg_adjKeB=89q+_gw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <00E6DEBC-05AB-4079-9E88-152225FF6DDE AT qux DOT com> <87wq80xauh DOT fsf AT hotmail DOT com> <CAOP4iL0WTYDc_UNmtQbencnx69t4u1X=HMDy1Y=7aM=EYW6-oA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <87siinykoy DOT fsf AT hotmail DOT com>
 <5440A6B2 DOT 2000900 AT ecosensory DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1410170815140 DOT 3358 AT igor2priv> <5441519D DOT 4060009 AT ecosensory DOT com> <CAM2RGhRSE1J6493W+3t2tSoH9Mr2TddKg47vgrfxqU64xam+sw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <5441B86D DOT 8000001 AT ecosensory DOT com> <CAM2RGhTjY5cJ9DWuG5zb-Psb_sHaRjHPWn_kb_S43Na9x2reaQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <2B12B7BB-2B96-4A89-8779-423523B731BF AT qux DOT com> <CAM2RGhRXNqQqV=eZyLvb_-ttOkv=1=sNGEgYnOOxKUwHQoUu_A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <D1C6B1F4-D009-465A-B3DF-E81055E83A93 AT qux DOT com> <CAM2RGhQtVC2R3H-3ppzUTjNGKZpxKEdJNJ_QMzKycej1bDxWgA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <CAGde_xNdddUSnCyyvKGjMKVPfUaN4WejS816rt-2XFmD592MXw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAM2RGhTRczF845GH+mcvwRoyOJ1Cj8d2UBBueF3KD=4yP7ah4g AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (LNX 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.74
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

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014, Evan Foss wrote:
> it does the job well. Sorry workflow was the wrong word. I was just
> wondering if like diff there was something obvious missing in the
> toolchain.

I think the obvious thing missing is integration between schematic capture
and PCB layout, and both with the desktop environment.  I've already
griped here on the list about diodes getting reversed, and I won't
belabour that beyond saying that it's a dealbreaker.  But we also have
different hotkeys for the two GUIs; hotkeys in both that conflict, both in
specific details and in general approach, with the conventions of desktop
environments (e.g. using sequences of unshifted alphabet letters where
everything else on my desktop would use Ctrl or Alt; *not* accepting the
Delete key for "delete", deleting something near the mouse cursor (chosen
at random if there is more than one such thing!) instead of the thing that
is selected, etc.); the need to run a separate converter program and then
load three separate files manually, in the right order, one of them by
typing a scripting language command into a command line, just to get one
schematic into pcb; and so on.  Attempting to use gschem or pcb doesn't
just have a learning curve.  It requires actively unlearning the rules
that other GUI programs follow.  And attempting to use either of them
after using the other requires unlearning the many points on which they
conflict.

If you want yet another separate un-integrated program to add to the
system, something to improve back-annotation from pcb to gschem seems like
an obvious gap in the current system.

Integration doesn't have to mean everything must be done by a single huge
GUI program.  We can have lots of separate single-task utilities - and we
should, the success of Unix demonstrates why.  But they should all be able
to really work together without requiring the user to manually compensate
for the conflicts between the different pieces of software.

The gEDA FAQ contains a fair bit of text attempting to justify why a lack
of integration is really better.  With respect, it is wrong.  The fact of
poor integration is easily understandable from the history of the system,
and it may not be easy or possible to solve it given volunteer resource
limitations, but it is a CATASTROPHIC PROBLEM, not a positive selling
point.  And the fact that this is a frequently-asked question suggests a
significant number of users are looking for integration and being turned
away because gEDA doesn't have it.

-- 
Matthew Skala
mskala AT ansuz DOT sooke DOT bc DOT ca                 People before principles.
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/