X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-SourceIP: 95.97.163.245 X-Authenticated-Sender: b DOT mykendevelopment AT upcmail DOT nl Message-ID: <55DC8B80.4020504@iae.nl> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 17:36:32 +0200 From: myken User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: [geda-user] Re: off-topic: daydreaming about modularization References: <6B8DDCCF-0E84-43DC-94A3-89CE0E56F0ED AT noqsi DOT com> <201508242052 DOT 28189 DOT ad252 AT freeelectron DOT net> <3766120C-93DD-454D-B2FA-7C79B78DC86C AT noqsi DOT com> <8DC5050C-49D2-49AD-94B0-A1FC857178E5 AT noqsi DOT com> <55DC6491 DOT 8030607 AT iae DOT nl> <3FA132D6-A8D9-47C8-8D37-E1962EF4098B AT noqsi DOT com> <55DC78F8 DOT 1010105 AT iae DOT nl> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090207060304090804070504" Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090207060304090804070504 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 25/08/15 16:51, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:17 AM, myken wrote: >> On 25/08/15 15:18, John Doty wrote: >> >> Isn't the whole idea in this thread "let's make gschem/pcb more accessible”? >> >> Yes, but the answer looks *completely* different depending on whether you’re >> coming from a pcb (integrated tool) or geda-gaf (toolkit) perspective. >> >> >> It must be my lack of understanding the English language but I don't think >> there is anyone on this list disputing the power, flexibility, simplicity >> and usability of the geda-gaf (gschem) toolkit. Well I don't. >> If I understand what I have read there is no one that wants to restrict the >> functionality of gschem. >> If anything I guess there is a bigger change that pcb will move towards >> gschem (geda) then the other way around. > The PCB developers are the current majority. Maybe, but that doesn't automatically mean the gschem (geda) architecture will change! I use geda-gaf for schematic entry, simulation, VHDL design and PCB design. It is a great tool, just the way it is. I don't want it to change. But I do see a great benefit in a more accessible toolkit (including pcb). If that means adding an additional button in the menu bar, so be it. >> All people try to do is find a way to make the combination more accessible. >> I don't mind adding the restriction "looking from the geda-gaf perspective", >> if that makes us move forward. > *gschem needs a more viable plugin interface so that people can > implement their desired gschem and pcb relationship with out > subjecting the rest of us too it.* Sound great to me. Anyone opposes this? Can we move forward from here? --------------090207060304090804070504 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 25/08/15 16:51, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:17 AM, myken <myken AT iae DOT nl> wrote:

On 25/08/15 15:18, John Doty wrote:

Isn't the whole idea in this thread "let's make gschem/pcb more accessible”?

Yes, but the answer looks *completely* different depending on whether you’re
coming from a pcb (integrated tool) or geda-gaf (toolkit) perspective.


It must be my lack of understanding the English language but I don't think
there is anyone on this list disputing the power, flexibility, simplicity
and usability of the geda-gaf (gschem) toolkit. Well I don't.
If I understand what I have read there is no one that wants to restrict the
functionality of gschem.
If anything I guess there is a bigger change that pcb will move towards
gschem (geda) then the other way around.

The PCB developers are the current majority.
Maybe, but that doesn't automatically mean the gschem (geda) architecture will change!
I use geda-gaf for schematic entry, simulation, VHDL design and PCB design. It is a great tool, just the way it is. I don't want it to change.
But I do see a great benefit in a more accessible toolkit (including pcb). If that means adding an additional button in the menu bar, so be it.

All people try to do is find a way to make the combination more accessible.
I don't mind adding the restriction "looking from the geda-gaf perspective",
if that makes us move forward.

gschem needs a more viable plugin interface so that people can
implement their desired gschem and pcb relationship with out
subjecting the rest of us too it.
Sound great to me. Anyone opposes this? Can we move forward from here?


--------------090207060304090804070504--