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=4sZrxERtNa06OMNc98S71wzXc0J5YTSLd6Y1OpqmXDY=; b=IdK8a4JOuBA7XOryGemgO16ko1jq5zZ14dlalBIjMNfSTJGzheeAmPO5cGqOPWyjKO APmgdXOOH1A6bqy/LhQRXDaKP05DeLPYOSPRrAnnYU/OGXD99qrLqeiTt07bovqW0+uY Ex2hICvRx086SHZTgXqicjbxjPiXXj5d6MzLC9dZaQUXSTqt0fZDp9rh1stgbnPcmtt0 SXeMHcac4ZK9Yd6L7geTyEwwR028/5byzY31ZQVkiJF1k7PA3PkGLVF1GKhIhg2nCKFI qSjzNVjAYsFNWzKUbfKdI2VAypqqZBVVtw1+yi0uRmsIzUMohpsiXMcIfr9mFuXaS+Lk 357w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.5.69 with SMTP id q5mr10617663laq.92.1440529875240; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 12:11:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55DCAA14.1030009@xs4all.nl> 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> <55DCAA14 DOT 1030009 AT xs4all DOT nl> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:11:15 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] Re: off-topic: daydreaming about modularization From: "Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via 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 t7PJBKrL008411 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, Aug 25, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Bert Timmerman (bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > John Doty wrote: >> >> On Aug 25, 2015, at 8:50 AM, myken wrote: >> >> >>> >>> On 25/08/15 14:25, John Doty wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Perhaps not so much you, but much of the “let’s make gschem better” that >>>> I see here is really “let’s make gschem more like pcb”. And, of course, the >>>> reason I find pcb such a horror is that it is not like gschem in its design. >>>> >>> >>> 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. >> >> >> John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. >> http://www.noqsi.com/ >> jpd AT noqsi DOT com >> >> >> >> >> > > Hello John, > > Please enlighten me for I fail to see what makes pcb an integrated tool and > gschem not. > > True gschem is part of series of tools bundled under geda-gaf, in the unix > way they probably would have been in seperate > repositories/.tar.gz/.rpm/.deb/whatnot. Imagine if pcb was split up * pcb-layout for just doing the GUI layout. * pcb2net for people doing back annotation * pcb2pdf for people exporting pdfs * pcb2ps * pcb2gcode * pcb2bom And now imagine the biggest difference of all. Instead of one giant program with poorly defined boundaries between layers you had * libpcbfile for moving between a memory representation of a layout and the file that stores it * libpcbgeo for processing geometric properties * libpcbexport for translation to pdf, ps, png, jpeg * libpcbnetlist for forward and backward annotation * libpcbui for providing the HID interface and etc. > In my limited view, gschem converts user input into a .sch file versus pcb > converts user input into a .pcb file. Yea look at the programming styles. To put it politely one is architected the other is evolved. > gattrib/gschlas/gsymcheck are designed for managing attributes for a .sch > file vs. plugins (like "teardrop") are designed for managing entities for a > .pcb file. > > Then there is a bunch of exporters added in pcb to "export" the .pcb file > into the format of need vs. gnetlist with a bunch of backends to "export" > the .sch file into the format of need. > > I think gschem and pcb are very alike. > > If we would improve on pcb like as was done in gschem, we would probably end > up with a "libpcb" (good) and invoking plugins (written in scheme) with > guile-2.0.0 and all sorts of portability and/or build dependency issues > (bad). > > IMHO, the gnetlist scheme backends is the best way to alienate/discourage > "common" users (EE) without a master degree on CS (did you develop the > secret "gnetlist+scheme-freemason-handshake" to show your membership of this > highly elite old-boys-club) from contributing to backends/plugins, thanks > pcb got rid of m4 footprints ... well, almost. > > IMHO, gnetlist backends should be written in a language of the EE's choice, > and pcb plugins should be too (pcb-rnd is ahead on that one, congrats Igor2 > ;-). > > Add transparency and accessibility to all stuff in a gschem data-structure. > > Well, maybe it's time to convert the gschem symbol file format into m4, or > scheme or ... nah, won't do. > > Just my thoughts. > > Kind regards, > > Bert Timmerman. -- Home http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ Work http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/