Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/09/11/12:24:49
> Geda-pcb, by contrast, is top-down with restricted goals and
> capabilities.
I like to think of it as "reflecting real-world needs and
goal-oriented features."
> Where geda-gaf describes topology in a general way that has few
> restrictions,
I.e. schematics don't have to worry about copper spacing rules, so
doesn't bother with rules.
> geda-pcb has no general basis in geometry.
Perhaps your theoretical geometry (a layout program is not a 3D cad
program, no matter how much you gripe about it), but it needs to know
a lot more about real-world geometry than gschem does, in ways that
actually benefit real-world layout people.
> Where geda-gaf uses attributes in mostly unrestricted ways,
I.e. gaf doesn't understand attributes at all.
> geda-pcb *enumerates* a restricted subset of possibilities. Adding a
> small subset of possible layer types to this approach has been
> cheered as a great advance here.
We went from two layer types hard-coded to specific layers, to letting
the user specify an arbitrary layer type on arbitrary layers by name.
It is a great advance for us, and we should be proud of the fact that
we're making progress, despite your opposition.
> Sorry, Nicklas, it makes me shudder.
Such drama is inappropriate here, I've asked you to stop many times.
Please stop.
> I expect that a xorn-pcb would be as frustrating. Unlike geda-gaf,
> where the frustrations have been rooted in the implementation, the
> frustrations of geda-pcb are rooted in the design.
Feel free to design your own replacement, but stop complaining about
how we design ours.
- Raw text -