X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-TCPREMOTEIP: 207.224.51.38 X-Authenticated-UID: jpd AT noqsi DOT com Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5D43DDBC-6365-4BAC-9E4F-C856790BD1D2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Subject: Re: [geda-user] pcb import schematic crash, parantheses in netname X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 From: John Doty In-Reply-To: <201602291805.u1TI5Raf006015@envy.delorie.com> Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:15:23 -0700 Message-Id: <5C55C012-B077-4C6C-B556-D1A2FBDB0C1A@noqsi.com> 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> <201602291805 DOT u1TI5Raf006015 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) 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 --Apple-Mail=_5D43DDBC-6365-4BAC-9E4F-C856790BD1D2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On Feb 29, 2016, at 11:05 AM, DJ Delorie wrote: >=20 >>> 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? >>=20 >> There's a distinction between rewriting and scripting. >=20 > 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. You missed my point completely: nobody needs to rewrite gschem to = represent any circuit. This is in contrast with pcb, which must be = rewritten to handle any printed circuit structure that it doesn=92t have = a specific feature for. >=20 >> Who are the target users? >=20 > 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. You mean =93pcb consumers are complaining=94. And there=92s a serious = disconnect between the design of gschem and what pcb consumers expect. = But pcb consumers expect an Accord, where gschem is a Wrangler. The = solution isn=92t to change the Wrangler into an Accord: Wranglers are = better when the going gets tough. >=20 > It really sounds like you want the target users to be "John Doty" in > which case, fork the tools and go away. >=20 >> It used to be "anybody computer-literate who's using any tool that >> can read a netlist", >=20 > 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? Copyrighted, unfortunately. You can=92t fix this by changing gschem. > Where is the osmond back-annotation tool? I could put that on gedasymbols after some cleanup. So many things to = do. Changing gschem won=92t help here, either. > You're using pcb as a whipping boy to avoid making the tools better > for everyone. You have a different metric of better. >=20 >> Because I think there should be a toolkit for those of us who need >> the open-ended capability that the Unix philosophy leads to. >=20 > 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? Windows consumers complain that Linux is difficult to use. Does that = mean that we should make Linux more like Windows? Word consumers = complain that LaTeX is difficult to use. Does that mean that LaTex = should be more like Word? It is very common to overestimate the value of complexity and = underestimate its costs. >=20 >> Imitating KiCAD is a dead end. >=20 > Bringing up the KiCAD strawman is yet another excuse. But one common complaint is that KiCAD is more popular. Do we want to be = popular and limited like Windows, or unpopular and powerful like Linux? >=20 >> 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. >=20 > 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. Emacs does this with scripting in Lisp. This stuff isn=92t wired in. = Gschem supports the emacs approach. >=20 >> But it's the cost of a >=20 > 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. Gschem isn=92t obtuse. Sparseness is a virtue, making the tool easier to = use. One great thing about gschem that I appreciated from the beginning = is its simplicity. For Viewlogic, I could spend all day discovering that = none of the many features did what I needed. Features have cognitive = costs and trip over each other (why is adding buried vias to pcb so = hard?). >=20 >> You want Word, I want LaTeX. >=20 > I want a schematic editor. You want a paint program. >=20 I want something as powerful and productive as gschem actually is. You = want a toy. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ jpd AT noqsi DOT com --Apple-Mail=_5D43DDBC-6365-4BAC-9E4F-C856790BD1D2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJW1JjMAAoJEF1Aj/0UKykRQ4oP/1Ke93z+FX9hC0innnS8sehJ HXxYbzDRNatecEmLgzD6y9+4G2mWsKZxVNXh9HMCh2Owj3MS6C+YL/5mwYoUAwfR eNfppREGyWQ4qYi+Hpt9e9H4nwALKnA/ivX4zxlrO1gKbuLqQ/AtxnNehbwIQnh1 Nlg2g2zvYL2MYC6CPEtBBaQfKUJsuEEthdy4occl6mPPS3yePug7hSwCxqZ/okko J8kqmYzSWxLVSQcFIf2IMJOzCl+dcrpIfWhvyNvAsl/1qsC1D1uLFmoiV309+IBI aGMU4/D07JImB0gsr3D+TbTnFB6aMGZNcEg/c3WmI2kTRpHbRR5ypkIfF7h7pKOi BYNzXYkTETy0Md5qLeXbSka3NF4adWmL3g/xnLdHYMYsT5BjAmGKRVw5Nnqo8kXm imhodSLncgXgxuHoEqWiZ9PR22b74rTGy9nPuFjbFzAn2+CXlufchN+bQcvESkMu QBMmeB3QysNQNXkQ/XLcQW4U1lAAsARi/woAwcLoiLkEtvzAFROAJrozdZEBobNB GgF7eaRg0+zl2iJPQcMR3mqiiy49ygDcpSIRs6es65lfDMtGD1G8G7m4YU4Gblfk 5n8uMDPvL6x5haem0l3h4xpdsdcCOl7+ZNecUevlO+qXq5g5URnQR5PVUkIK6rNL KBjuUhVjGWFnIIIW7IFX =D67Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_5D43DDBC-6365-4BAC-9E4F-C856790BD1D2--