X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:05:27 -0500 Message-Id: <201602291805.u1TI5Raf006015@envy.delorie.com> From: DJ Delorie To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: <233112C8-21C6-4753-823A-19BD5A2882C1@noqsi.com> (message from John Doty on Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:43:45 -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> <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>

<201602291654 DOT u1TGsRTd003670 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <233112C8-21C6-4753-823A-19BD5A2882C1 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 > > 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.