X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:05:06 +0200 (CEST) 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: off-topic: daydreaming about modularization (was: Re: [geda-user] Buttons for automation (obligatory grab at our shared 3rd rail) Re: [geda-user] Antifork) In-Reply-To: <3766120C-93DD-454D-B2FA-7C79B78DC86C@noqsi.com> Message-ID: 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> 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 Tue, 25 Aug 2015, John Doty wrote: > > On Aug 24, 2015, at 11:56 PM, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote: > >> The drive is low too: even with the clumsy modelling John likes to keep bashing pcb for, it works surprisingly well in practice. > > I think part of our problem is that if pcb makes sense to you, gschem does not, and vice-versa. Can't remember where I said gschem didn't make sense to me... To me both of them make a lot of sense, and I see the shortcomings of both. I don't think gschem is perfect, either.