X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com 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-type; bh=HWBUP3rJVDzuK88RHs2obOvvKIMLFD7RauuQiIsYeQs=; b=la8PyKALscbclMp4lByPj8s00vtE9My+t4SJw7oyHKAhSzZI3WXQbyRtnIZTzDUd94 sLxy3QE5YZ7sebJbtL+R8Zao7HF8GaA6MA26V8+Nvwt9XzWYAUMFtF7QLnDcBBZMhmAi ffoViCGuJFiEcYBdDv1mHQAuFVLysuiBjJNcS1G2jeloZddMSC9sUSLXnjd84dB/lZeP VCzQr2088F9412APFr1NxnQ5aB/7LQDBLD/d6eNe7oun/UUyHsXMdnp7Hun3u/4RVUDo a69CWfU4hR66WfSomF5nzamOCL7vBBLH1FfHL/7R+R7Aw2nbbdlAhZMHHMKOPdmN1frg Ichw== MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <50A688B8 DOT 4090809 AT neurotica DOT com> <50A6A265 DOT 6050300 AT neurotica DOT com> <4E8E6F31-EF8D-4540-BA86-7935C1C3E6D8 AT noqsi DOT com> <50A6A95C DOT 5030903 AT neurotica DOT com> <355DEF4F-51BB-44A8-A5F4-D8564E7E7885 AT noqsi DOT com> <20121116213601 DOT 13718 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> <66889AAB-3A82-4861-ACB0-B35A876EF6F4 AT noqsi DOT com> <50A83AAA DOT 6060500 AT jump-ing DOT de> <50A8615E DOT 2080800 AT neurotica DOT com> <05730E0F-4DA1-47C8-80BB-5D4F37EFD94E AT noqsi DOT com> <50A8675D DOT 30509 AT neurotica DOT com> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 00:42:15 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] Thoughts on gschem UI From: Evan Foss To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 Sorry that really should have been the start of it's own thread. On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Evan Foss wrote: > I would like to butt in here with my opinion. I have a few minor minor > gripes I have with gschem like the inability to do 45 degree rotation > of symbols but I really don't care to see gschem change massively. It > works very well even if it looks a bit dated. > > From my view point the rest of gEDA/PCB should change around gschem to > better use it and not the other way around. There is a lot of unused > metadata in a schematic that is yet unused and that is where most of > my frustrations with gEDA come from. This is why see issues with the > netlister. Following the Unix philosophy it does it's job providing a > netlist but that removes a lot of the schematics metadata that other > tools like PCB might want. For example which connections are a bus or > meant to be routed differentially? There are comments I leave on > schematics in gschem that I would like to be passed to PCB tools that > get removed because we only deal with netlists. I have been > contemplating for a while now writing something to be parallel in the > work flow with gnetlist to just handle this stuff. I view this as > working from gschem at the bottom up which is the opposite of the way > modern top down development process goes but I am curious to see an > opinion from the group. > > -Evan > > On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: >> On 11/17/2012 11:35 PM, John Doty wrote: >>>>> If you had a BASIC interpreter and you wanted to change to >>>>> Python, you could fiddle with keywords and notation, maybe add a >>>>> few extra statements, and create something that looked vaguely >>>>> like Python. But it wouldn't really *be* Python. It's not >>>>> practical to change a BASIC interpreter into a Python interpreter >>>>> by patching it. Similarly, gschem isn't constructed the way you'd >>>>> construct a 21st century graphics application. >>>> >>>> You KEEP saying that. Why is it important that everything conform >>>> to your idea of a "modern GUI"? >>> >>> It isn't important to *me* at all. I want stability. What I don't >>> want is chaos in the name of turning gschem into something more >>> modern. I'm trying to point out that this isn't trivial. >> >> Understood. And understandable. >> >>>> As I stated before, what constitutes a "modern GUI" will be >>>> different a few years from now, at least from the perspective of >>>> the unwashed masses. At that time, will you demand that the suite >>>> be rewritten again, for the reason that it has somehow become >>>> useless because it's so "not a modern GUI application"? >>> >>> I'm the guy who is advocating caution here, remember? I'm asking that >>> gschem not be damaged, that any drastic change be in the context of a >>> new tool. >> >> Ok. So will you be writing this new tool? >> >> If you plan to, I look forward to seeing it. From the impression of >> your work style that I get from your posts, I'm guessing I'd probably >> like it. >> >> If you're not planning on doing that, is it your desire that the >> current developers undertake this project? That's fine too, but I think >> that, after treating them like this, they probably aren't too enthused >> about the idea. >> >> Just sayin'.. >> >> So...where do you want this to go? >> >> -Dave >> >> -- >> Dave McGuire, AK4HZ >> New Kensington, PA > > > > -- > Home > http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ > Work > http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/ -- Home http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ Work http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/