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: <55DC78F8.1010105@iae.nl> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:17:28 +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> In-Reply-To: <3FA132D6-A8D9-47C8-8D37-E1962EF4098B@noqsi.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070103050405070101050304" Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070103050405070101050304 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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. 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. Cheers, Robert. --------------070103050405070101050304 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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.

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.

Cheers, Robert.
--------------070103050405070101050304--