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-transfer-encoding; bh=0VkTpOrNGE7BjCJAFW26ywurLBQIIFAwLcmUk01H8t0=; b=zukF139h4IbHVO0tjbQcJ1nMX39ExpbFC4orawQl93VNBwzP2Ay2hiymKFP1GHYpyp 4AjGJNvIyw/bsPNDb+1S9TvQwBJgLA3NB8D1dB4J4ZsXk3WcMfH+zbO4LIbi6o91c9qe Rldn4zblIWS9FXvw5shnDkeCh8ehz61LWA0UhfNBVs8qzChdo0nP1lm0sIeJoc+M8Flf /WBWiiD5XSOf2+QK3mBknH3S7qthvi9fG9v3qMT6OVVACwlMa5LTSI7CN3KvoDIcqAxO O5KFSA82I/PW2qlqkbliJ/t6VCcXHLGv0uVkUYuhrU6y5ynk9wBdjk3r9RT0xpv1Glyv TQTw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0VkTpOrNGE7BjCJAFW26ywurLBQIIFAwLcmUk01H8t0=; b=Xxgizp51lqpyGWaM8O9MJlKH3HWl+F5pzAU4t4JzpeBkOevO/SLgrKTJ+8MhBaMAru eCGOA+hmcp684P9ZuuKMrroNZCng/8YeO/VQiIOT3UmfU0cUvYjbksvLD85ctep9VQY3 W1NpsJAvq84Yt8Uhabf7RF/D4rCV96u6DbISOLIB1wYYUyRt23din44rSq1EL7ieKtoQ OPeuNiLvlwWQQ34XlNx8h/xnFt/wh3mlvOw8LVJFft9R2Iwg+D5OSDyj97vFF7bU993e EQ67XBu2FkzHRYmZdXvDi4FJn4iB99ZKyTR/DcmmFAcSkND4xBamDAeHW+ijwyeBeu+X IXEA== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIzb26js7/7LPhkQQM54QPiT14uL4H2/SI0i13PRYH45JEgPHUgw2FLQw84RZkeI1Gsj98ejZ9IbFgz+w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.90.137 with SMTP id bw9mr11369908wjb.120.1456698179247; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 14:22:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1771F6F4-1235-4D24-9015-2C9A04EB2117@noqsi.com> References: <20160215215221 DOT fd472794e7b9446a243bfc40 AT gmail DOT com> <201602152055 DOT u1FKtM4K011038 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <20160215220938 DOT bbc7eaa59d827cd0b261ea97 AT gmail DOT com> <201602152135 DOT u1FLZrw9012774 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <7F210DE7-0A0B-42F9-ABBE-2C2768621186 AT noqsi DOT com> <20160216081722 DOT 1065cbed6653d3da4ffc7498 AT gmail DOT com> <201602160724 DOT u1G7Ox26001785 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <20160216085628 DOT b70143c330cd4da98a4603d3 AT gmail DOT com> <201602160805 DOT u1G85d8c003148 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <20160216092912 DOT 7f7439f703b49175a21dbb1b AT gmail DOT com> <201602161715 DOT u1GHFMBB028078 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <201602162032 DOT u1GKWL7Y005291 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>

<59CE9019-7A56-49D6-BC2B-680A7253B055 AT noqsi DOT com>

<1771F6F4-1235-4D24-9015-2C9A04EB2117 AT noqsi DOT com> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 13:22:58 -0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] pcb import schematic crash, parantheses in netname From: "Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id u1SMN4xC010945 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 Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 11:50 AM, John Doty wrote: > > On Feb 28, 2016, at 1:10 PM, Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > >> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 6:11 AM, John Doty wrote: >>> >>> On Feb 28, 2016, at 7:07 AM, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote: >>> >>>> John Doty wrote: >>>> >>>>>> as well since it will help gschem stay viable long-term, >>>>> >>>>> Gschem has no such problem. >>>> >>>> CERN chose kicad rather than gschem for their open hardware >>>> initiative. Same with a number of high profile open hardware projects. >>>> See http://kicad-pcb.org/made-with-kicad/ for some examples. >>> >>> And more people choose Word than LaTeX. That doesn’t mean that LaTeX isn’t a better choice for those of us who use it, or that it should be more like Word (at your suggestion, I tried Lyx. Ugh. Inflexible and difficult. Combines the disadvantages of both approaches). >>> >>> Eleven days ago, JAXA launched Hitomi (ASTRO-H) with ASICs designed with geda-gaf and ngspice on board. Quietest CCD measurement chains ever put into space. >>> >>>> >>>> Please don't delude yourself int the perception everything is working >>>> alright, when it clearly isn’t. >>> >>> Clearly not. But there’s a profound difference between what pcb users want and what geda-gaf provides. Geda-gaf's application space is far broader, but pcb users want something more targeted. Of course, geda-gaf is pretty simple and flexible, and we who script it can aim it at whatever target we wish. But there's a big faction here who don’t want to do that: they conceive of something as hard-wired, complicated, and inflexible as pcb (but perhaps easier to use for *their* application). >> >> pcb has an action system. It has batch mode. It has a plugin system. It has >> a text file format. It doesn't aspire to be "hard-wired" any more than gschem. >> A number of people are working on making it more scriptable, not less so. > > But it doesn’t have flexible abstractions underneath these things. Pcb simply can’t do anything that fails to conform to a limited set of intentions reflecting use cases. It’s not a “stack of materials” editor: it can only handle a weirdly restricted subset. If you mean it can only make pcbs you're correct, but since that's all it's supposed to do that's hardly surprising. The abstractions it uses are quite suitable for the purpose. If it was a "stack of materials" editor it wouldn't work to make pcbs, since stacking up a bunch of materials won't result in a pcb. I think what frustrates me most about your attitude towards pcb is that you're determined to regard its problems (and I freely admit that there are some) as fundamental design defects. You're mostly wrong in this, have no basis for the claim, and should stop making it. > Gschem is an unspecialized topology editor built on highly flexible abstractions. Add a suitable symbol library and it can represent the topology of a printed circuit, an ASIC, a Makefile, or plumbing. There are a few blemishes, e.g. slotting, where it hard-wires use cases, pcb-style. Perhaps we can move those to optional scripts in the future. > >>> It’s also true that much of geda-gaf’s intelligence is actually in your symbol library, so assembling a good symbol library for a particular purpose is a large part of the challenge. But as you know, this is also fraught with difficulty, because even the pcb application space isn’t a coherent, monolithic thing. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> It has been stable and productive for >>>>> well over a decade. >>>> >>>> Just like pcb. Only that in this case it is decades. >>> >>> Except that if you watch this list, the most common topic is problems with pcb. A significant subset is problems with pcb that people expect geda-gaf to work >> >> That's because what pcb is trying to do is harder. > > Is it that the problem is intrinsically harder, or that the approach of implementing a function for every use case ad hoc makes the problem harder? It's intrinsically harder. I'm going to assume you accept that. If you knew how it worked at all you wouldn't claim that it implements a function for every use case. It absolutely does not. If you actually want an idea how it works take a look in src/gpcb_menu.res.in, and you'll see that all the operations defined in the menus are implemented in terms of sequences of fundamental actions. >>>> Do you remember the poll I did a while ago? The results were non- >>>> ambiguous. >>> >>> No, they were on a pcb-dominated forum. Not an unbiased sample. >> >> The forum in question is also the largest gschem forum > > Indeed. That’s a problem. We really need to separate the projects. What’s here of interest to a gschem user who doesn’t use pcb? People like Paul Tan don’t seem to post anymore. You're changing the subject from the user composition question and relevance of Kai's poll. I'll take it you concede the point. Britton