X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-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:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=ZC0Kht79mID156UmmQqOKYFMyrkxaIGy40YMWDKZ2dQ=;
        b=Zb8r95dDIjgzWpNpNztXSJd6UIwDeqoUpCUt5N5v58AdPR44UE3VPUuYf3BFo1wnN/
         YtliN1pQGc62OC2USoyzQnzkUy1CyGq/SLf+8ZTcha9xwSS5W0Y9+ChFfIXmA6VQ9mQQ
         OBxsX/XHI7jsaY8YUGVQaiJ0/BcT2eJeB8gBPcD1fG/KlKwk5gjL8f2IcaPn2KPxmyxP
         YjCOczi+217Q+/tYM8ZFI8KzggCjVyCSqNVdSEGKXOdRvt/G4Q5Fg3h84w2Ut8QEz1NX
         1FpiZf1wNxeOfSM2V5hFDea8LEQ5Jqw5e1K5TDBXbhOv8dOpTg4+pLziIWshPrzl/pk3
         n8lg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.73.33 with SMTP id i1mr95211lbv.31.1440617696618; Wed,
 26 Aug 2015 12:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AE3D25A2-20BC-4557-95ED-D9A2A73F873B@noqsi.com>
References: <CAM2RGhTJ-gywb3LrkKoNKUxkwJCTsJ7vRxiLtmrXa5Mnp0331w AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<DUB125-W46D6798DBF674B80F24208C6620 AT phx DOT gbl>
	<6B8DDCCF-0E84-43DC-94A3-89CE0E56F0ED AT noqsi DOT com>
	<201508242052 DOT 28189 DOT ad252 AT freeelectron DOT net>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1508250534570 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv>
	<3766120C-93DD-454D-B2FA-7C79B78DC86C AT noqsi DOT com>
	<CAM2RGhTDNMBQiCkuB4kc2+0k8t9Xs+yOOCyc6Tk_CEAqKmFS+g AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<60866F2E-0014-4F02-A359-315F1A80D893 AT noqsi DOT com>
	<CAM2RGhTX3gcpRLxNmSzd5Ru=UH1GzeOq9rZhs62mTQ1F_-zv0A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<AE3D25A2-20BC-4557-95ED-D9A2A73F873B AT noqsi DOT com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 15:34:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CAM2RGhRR44X1GO1LgOJFJt5hhHsbTVcj2iFOZurGSTJWY-NCcg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: off-topic: daydreaming about modularization (was: Re: [geda-user]
 Buttons for automation (obligatory grab at our shared 3rd rail) Re:
 [geda-user] Antifork)
From: "Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id t7QJZ0sV032538
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

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:48 AM, John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 25, 2015, at 6:45 PM, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
>> To a point I could see an argument to be made that gschem and PCB have
>> different goals and the more convoluted goal of PCB leads to more
>> convoluted objects.
>
> I don’t think that’s true at all. Starting from simple primitive objects, gschem can compose arbitrarily complicated objects containing arbitrarily complicated objects with embedded or attached metadata of arbitrary complexity at all levels. But pcb has only one (restricted) level of composition. That’s what drives it to have complex, inflexible primitives.

Yes I realized I was wrong about this over lunch.

> John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
> http://www.noqsi.com/
> jpd AT noqsi DOT com
>
>
>



-- 
Home
http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/
Work
http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/