Mail Archives: geda-user/2012/10/26/19:36:51
On Oct 26, 2012, at 4:51 PM, Markus Hitter wrote:
>
> Fritzing doesn't even try to be as detailed as gEDA. But Fritzing gets all the newbies, so in the end, Fritzing wins. Simple maths.
Why is that winning? As far as I'm concerned, the tool that gets the job done wins.
>
> And you simply fail to explain how an integrated tool or a set of tools with consistent behaviour stops you from using your set of scripts. You apparently take it as a given, which is without substance.
A fine example of the problem is LyX, which pretends to be an integrated TeX environment, but cannot actually import a real TeX document without crashing. Of course, the TeX folks have successfully defended their toolkit in exactly the way I approve of: LyX is a separate development. So, those who can live with the limitations of LyX have an integrated tool, and those who need the power of TeX still have it.
>
>
>> They are separate, independent tools with separate, independent histories, both predating modern GUI conventions. Why would you expect consistency here?
>
> Who exactly is interested in the history of a tool? I use it today and I couldn't care less by whom and how it was used five years ago.
Well, I *do* care about that kind of consistency. Aerospace projects take a long time, and I have a decade of gEDA schematics that I reuse. It is extremely important to me that the tools continue to behave in a predictable manner. That's why, for example, it would be bad to put the new features in gnet-spice-noqsi into gnet-spice-sdb. I have a bunch of stuff that would break. For new projects, though, I use gnet-spice-noqsi.
>
> Getting both tools' mouse behaviour consistent is a matter of an hour or two, it just has to be done. But every time such things are attempted, some script users come around the corner and say basically "we did it wrong for 20 years, so I insist to continue doing it wrong!". Not exactly wise.
>
>> And a new editor would be fine. A broken kludge based on gschem would not.
>
> OK. I take you can't imagine how this "shallow tool" can be put into the 21st century.
>
> I'm pretty sure modernising gschem step by step is actually the only way to go, because this genius angel with a modern editor in his pocket won't fall off the sky.
It's less likely that a transcendental genius will appear who can accomplish what I think you want step by step, fighting the architecture and legacy flows all the way.
John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com
- Raw text -