X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:42:36 +0100 (CET) X-X-Sender: igor2 AT igor2priv To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Debug: to=geda-user AT delorie DOT com from="gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu" From: gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu Subject: Re: [geda-user] pcb import schematic crash, parantheses in netname In-Reply-To: <1771F6F4-1235-4D24-9015-2C9A04EB2117@noqsi.com> Message-ID: References: <20160215215221 DOT fd472794e7b9446a243bfc40 AT gmail DOT com> <20160216085628 DOT b70143c330cd4da98a4603d3 AT gmail DOT com> <201602160805 DOT u1G85d8c003148 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <20160216092912 DOT 7f7439f703b49175a21dbb1b AT gmail DOT com> <201602161715 DOT u1GHFMBB028078 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <201602162032 DOT u1GKWL7Y005291 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <59CE9019-7A56-49D6-BC2B-680A7253B055 AT noqsi DOT com> <1771F6F4-1235-4D24-9015-2C9A04EB2117 AT noqsi DOT com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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 Sun, 28 Feb 2016, John Doty wrote: >>> >>> Except that if you watch this list, the most common topic is problems with pcb. A significant subset is problems with pcb that people expect geda-gaf to work >> >> That's because what pcb is trying to do is harder. > > Is it that the problem is intrinsically harder, or that the approach of implementing a function for every use case ad hoc makes the problem harder? > I know this is a rehash, but a "short" summary in case of someone new is reading the thread... Unlike John, I never sent anything to space. But unlike John, I am an active user of both pcb (fork) and gschem. My flow is not exclusively gschem->pcb. I also hacked the code of both pcb (a lot) and gschem (a little) and the accompanying tool chain. My experience is exactly the opposite. TLDR: geda/gaf/gschem is more broken than PCB. Long version: PCB: hackish and limited, most of the limitations stem from design, but it actually does its job surprisingly well on the common daily stuff. When I need something new and strange, it's relatively easy to add as long as it doesn't try to totally change the concept of layers. Most importantly: the community (devs and users) are well aware and open about the shortcomings in the design and are considering/working on to change them. PCB tries to evolve using multiple different techniques. It tries to find out when an old design decision is bad and it admits it and it tries to leave it behind. PCB is brave enough to discuss and touch even core concepts of its design. If something is not fixed or not fixed soon enough is usually because of lack of developer time. My impression is whether pcb will survive another decade mostly depends on whether enough manpower is put into finding and fixing the right problems. gschem: hackish and limited, most of the limitations stem from design, but it actually does its job surprisingly well on the common daily stuff. When I need something new and strange, it's a PITA to add, because some of the most trivial and basic concepts are missing by design. Despite of the rugged effort of some hardcore anti-pcb users, none of these are related to the pcb flow or non-toolkit approaches, rather things like "objects can not be identified", we lie "networks (mostly) don't exist", and that "scheme is so great that everyone must learn it", etc. The common in them is the fact that gschem tries to be highly generic at some parts while it is simply not generic enough (or at all) on other parts. Note: I am talking about generic design/concept and inrastructural stuff, not about a bag of random UI features. Most importantly: the community (devs and users) are either aware of this and then labeled "anti-toolkit", "anti-gschem", "pcb users" or they are the Few True Geda Users, for whom geda is perfect and who are totally blind to any design flaws. Thus there's no much chance to even discuss design flaws, yet alone fix them. My impression is whether geda/gschem will survive another decade depends on whether pcb keeps it as an almost exclusive input. Not because pcb is so great and flawless - it's more like "how far gschem, as a standalone project, would continue from now if we didn't have pcb". It's because gschem is carrying some old and wrong design decisions that blocks a lot of potential roads to progress and there seems to be no chance removing them. No offense meant. Developers are investing a great deal of work in both project. Both projects are mature and useful. It's just that while pcb is getting bashed daily, it's gschem that seems to be much more stuck with hard to fix (or even discuss) design decisions from the past. I do not want to discourage developers even if I don't agree with the direction which some of them take. NOTE: I don't want to start a flamewar (it's already raging on). I don't want to contribute to the flamewar (too much), so I probably won't answer to replies except something radiacally new appears. My points in details are known (look in the mailing list archives or in my devlog). My intention with this mal is... Many of us try to restrain themselves and avoid defending pcb from unreasonable and often baseless attacks or avoid trying to discuss geda/gschem design flaws as they turn into senseless flame wars within 2 mails. In the same time some users keep coming back claiming pcb is all bad and gschem is perfect. The sole purpose of my post is to state that's not the ultimate truth and there's another opinion on this. Regards, Igor2