Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/09/11/13:27:59
On Sep 11, 2015, at 10:24 AM, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
>> 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.”
But they are *your* goals, not everyones.
>
>> 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.
But it does have to worry about rules, and those rules are reflected in attributes.
>
>> 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.
But your “benefits” only extend to the users who are doing projects that conform to the boundaries you enforce.
>
>> Where geda-gaf uses attributes in mostly unrestricted ways,
>
> I.e. gaf doesn't understand attributes at all.
The back ends do. Various scripts do. Good factoring.
>
>> 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.
Please lose the attitude that the job of developers is to restrict and control user ambitions.
>> 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.
>
I would think, given that you complain a great deal about how gEDA has trouble attracting users, that you might want to pay attention to what its problems are from an actual user’s perspective.
John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com
- Raw text -