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=X0FEXr9NvqNjCpxfV7Cj5iYMEoLjWXohPll7pfcAqU8=;
	b=QFitCX+TQ2hGzT/eFOlRbtR311mEyFNepDP9ptXXYiUqNGU7mEdoG0k5GesF3chBKJ
	AoY5Mxo2B2CqU3v+UymwzSGGQBGL3Zo7/3qp5ip0nBuNEop8FGmtgN26vCuW4wmOpvG+
	2yXQj6q7rQ4duWrX2wUOL7Qn+DOfg8jJbFqIi3FG4onA1Mq3ajxw6FlHxURWdz0bd6UH
	r01MwAWLmj7UI98EdLnQBuo37AVCUBqew3itiKYDTMXZ969I8SRXkiub0Pl4mrIRYDRE
	gGHetp5A76lAqOi7qXeB3gwijT7/6QW6a7Eox4Kp3yh89RhHGo1jcx/ak9DAc5vwVT2z
	1RoA==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.152.20.228 with SMTP id q4mr17750326lae.74.1440388331041;
	Sun, 23 Aug 2015 20:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<55DA8231.4010904@mcmahill.net>
References:	<55D8D8B8 DOT 7050907 AT jump-ing DOT de>
	<20150822230549 DOT 3750 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se>
	<55D9A5AE DOT 9090604 AT jump-ing DOT de>
	<C2FC0AF3-DFDB-4799-87F7-039614405DCD AT noqsi DOT com>
	<55D9BC06 DOT 9060106 AT iae DOT nl>
	<55D9C34A DOT 2090709 AT jump-ing DOT de>
	<C55E2A02-99F7-402C-953F-8E844004D61B AT noqsi DOT com>
	<201508232341 DOT t7NNfl9O012371 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<CF6D95DF-9FBF-48F6-8E68-458A2BC14CAF AT noqsi DOT com>
	<CAM2RGhS9QqDq2dZLwt7LfUFwQouCaX-SuxEu0U2ofNrxuttmhg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<55DA8231 DOT 4010904 AT mcmahill DOT net>
Date:	Mon, 24 Aug 2015 03:52:10 +0000
Message-ID:	<CAM2RGhT+qj-4EThsNVacKzHZhCx89kzmZ0uSNR3ttDdJOWJWxA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	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
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id t7O3qFLF013304
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

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 2:32 AM, Dan McMahill (dan AT mcmahill DOT net) [via
geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> On 8/23/2015 9:04 PM, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via
> geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 11:54 PM, John Doty<jpd AT noqsi DOT com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >On Aug 23, 2015, at 7:41 PM, DJ Delorie<dj AT delorie DOT com>  wrote:
>>> >
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>In other words: gschem urgently needs a button "make a PCB from
>>>>>> >>>>this" and also a "simulate this" one.
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>Simulation is as simple as pushing a button? Which simulator? Where
>>>>> >>>are models? Which notion of hierarchy are you using? Which
>>>>> >>>schematics? How are your stimuli generated? How is output displayed?
>>>>> >>>So many options. Putting this into gschem is too complicated. You’d
>>>>> >>>need subsystems for script editing and something like make. Except
>>>>> >>>that excellent tools for those jobs already exist. A toolkit should
>>>>> >>>use them, not reinvent them badly.
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>John, your failing here is that you refuse to consider the option of a
>>>> >>toolkit that provides easy-to-use defaults.  You assume a toolkit must
>>>> >>always be used the hard way, and must not provide any convenience
>>>> >>features.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >“Convenience features” that don’t work make it harder to discover what
>>> > works. I’ve been struggling with Vivado lately…
>>
>> This is something that seems to eat up everyone's time. Fighting with
>> John. Look I happen to think that to a point he is correct about how
>> the tools  architecture should be shaped. That said yes I wish it was
>> a point I did not have to hear about so often. Why must everyone take
>> the bate when these comments are made. This thread has real potential
>> to but instead here we are again fighting about something that could
>> have been ignored until it is mentioned in a meaningful context.
>>
>>
>
> If anyone wants to try and run with it, I have ideas that I started
> implementing the framework for, on how to get that "make me a pcb" and
> "simulate" button without it being so restrictive as to break the tool for
> others.  The basic idea was make sure that gschem had a well defined
> interface for something like a simulator.  The simulator would provide a
> file that basically says:
>
> - I need a menu with these options
> - Here is a set of attributes that the user will need a dialog to configure
> (btw, look at the dialogs in PCB for the export HID's.  Those are not hard
> coded in the GTK or Lesstif HID's but are created on the fly).
> - Here is what should be run when the user clicks "simulate" or "send to
> pcb" or whatever.
>
> Couple this with something sort of like emacs major modes.
>
> So the idea is you have a full featured schematic editor with no built in
> details about simulator X, Y, or Z or layout tools A, B, or C but you
> provide an easy for those other tools to interface.  I got as far as
> extending the scheme interface to gschem to support some of the dialogs and
> menu creation stuff you'd need but ran out of time and energy.  As far as I
> know that code still exists in the main repository.
>
> This same suggestion should also exist on the mailing list archives too.
>
> It doesn't force a workflow on anyone but it does provide a path to
> streamlined workflows for those who wish to streamline in a different way.

Ok before John Dotty declares war can this please get it's own thread?
I don't want the SNR on this one to go any higher.


> -Dan
>
>



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

- Raw text -