X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 11:54:27 -0500
Message-Id: <201602291654.u1TGsRTd003670@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <A7491D34-9661-4F34-A547-5DF0264122B6@noqsi.com> (message from
	John Doty on Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:41:50 -0700)
Subject: Re: [geda-user] pcb import schematic crash, parantheses in netname
References: <20160215215221 DOT fd472794e7b9446a243bfc40 AT gmail 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> <CAJXU7q_w5NunkojiCr36RHRTq0hJ+PZP1e0GumTRMoGXcvgRXQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <201602161715 DOT u1GHFMBB028078 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <CAC4O8c9jr_b376SpuUk5HrJApP1c75oxsEBemn-i_xtC-rt-Zw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <201602162032 DOT u1GKWL7Y005291 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <CAC4O8c-ig=0UVAqagNXH_DBmC9uVQDu3Y1Gx7LBGmRCo0-_kVQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <E75ECBB6-14E7-437A-B374-E0CF86BDFF1A AT noqsi DOT com> <CAC4O8c8z4JiJr=mgA+co4pX-yxu_pVsXpeKRYqneuxZNnYqh8g AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAC4O8c8ejS! N3GrmB1Zw=Dx9Pm-3Y0jwjNs=yjmwgsqcoVW5ACw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <59CE9019-7A56-49D6-BC2B-680A7253B055 AT noqsi DOT com> <nauuv2$m6r$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org> <E56E5601-2E20-4A6E-B44C-C4F04808B97F AT noqsi DOT com> <CAC4O8c-ry2HnxmOHB2hARpcOMfuN4bb8rHmzZAD-z40pvOoVPA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <1771F6F4-1235-4D24-9015-2C9A04EB2117 AT noqsi DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1602290452460 DOT 7885 AT igo!
 r2priv> <A7491D34-9661-4F34-A547-5DF0264122B6 AT noqsi 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
Precedence: bulk



> > gschem: hackish and limited, most of the limitations stem from
> > design, but it actually does its job surprisingly well on the
> > common daily stuff.
> 
> And on the uncommon stuff, too. Today's task is to assemble a SPICE
> file that, combined with other scripts, will allow a test engineer
> to plot the expected scope traces for a given configuration of an
> instrument with many configuration options.

Perhaps drawing a schematic for a spice simulation is common daily
stuff, then.

> > When I need something new and strange, it's a PITA to add,
> 
> But at least you *can*:

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?

> > because some of the most trivial and basic concepts are missing by design.
> 
> And that is the Unix design philosophy,

It's a poor philosophy when it results in a tool that's missing
"trivial and basic concepts".  It's a like a "cat" command that can't
take more than one input file.

Any please stop with the "ancient unix philosophy" argument.  If the
tool is difficult to use by the target users, something is wrong.  Why
not find out what's causing the difficulty and try to fix it, instead
of putting the onus on the users to figure out what philosophy they
should have adopted?

> But networks shouldn't exist. Having gschem understand networks is
> like cat -v. Networks are gnetlist's job. Fundamentally, gschem
> edits pages, not circuits.

Fundamentally, gschem edits schematics, not pages.  Dumbing it down to
"just editing pages" is like using Microsoft Paint to do architectural
design.  Sure, it works, but it's not smart enough to work well.

> > and that "scheme is so great that everyone must learn it", etc.
> 
> Scheme is just another programming language. Guile is a rather
> undisciplined implementation of it. It's not wonderful, but it's not
> a barrier unless you make it one.

It's a barrier because it has an intrinsic learning curve that must be
assigned a cost and priority.  It makes it difficult for people to
justify using gEDA *at all* because the cost of adoption is that much
higher.  Pointing out that this cost is *expected of everyone* doesn't
help.

> Gschem is a page editor.

Too bad it's not a schematic editor.  That would be useful.