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=qV5WiG1++0bPsaCZWqDaInJ1l49KRngHikld7x+gdtI=; b=JCcouLL1/v+gv+kk80QIUPgQyUU+W557JSZzkDmGhGaDPTamXPmr/qfKroXXGWKpsk ZbRFei8SvXnZLlsXf1YD3iOKYaxzZF1h7RPfsPhRBJcPwRWJ1zHFxZ7KUhwAoKBlnO+f VxJtvBR5Ay933zhg8WqalpqB7L5KIEDm8H8uvHpStlRY0TOJjmyZnvNbID5bpUmPv6qR 8wgDqtejEQ+V8cSdp8MVz2d4Grozt6KgBtc6IfAHBQoYYMPvbxrvRIpk81BLHSzdO1Lz 6dEgIba7MmLzodOx9f7Rb5rWNY2fNU5LnUw52ZCSRJiu86mk98OP0H3TCJme2k4Pagb9 QW/w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.30.73 with SMTP id q9mr28503890lah.31.1440542724338; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:45:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <60866F2E-0014-4F02-A359-315F1A80D893@noqsi.com> 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> <60866F2E-0014-4F02-A359-315F1A80D893 AT noqsi DOT com> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 22:45:24 +0000 Message-ID: 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) 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 t7PMjS8k020843 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 10:13 PM, John Doty wrote: > > On Aug 25, 2015, at 2:32 PM, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 7:51 AM, 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. >> >> Looking at the sourcecode I agree 100% >> Looking at the UI I disagree 100%. > > I wasn’t thinking UI or source code. What matters is the underlying abstractions. Gschem constructs schematics by composition of a few elementary kinds of objects with simple properties. Pcb constructs layouts by concatenation of complicated objects with odd properties that interact in complicated ways. I am not sure about that partially because I am more interested in how to shove something else in than rework what is there. This is probably not the best plan but the nicer migratory strategies have been tried and failed. To a point I could see an argument to be made that gschem and PCB have different goals and the more convoluted goal of PCB leads to more convoluted objects. I am working on my concept of what I would like it to look like in broad form and will share with the group when I have a complete concept. >> >>> John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. >>> http://www.noqsi.com/ >>> jpd AT noqsi DOT com >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Home >> http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ >> Work >> http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/ >> > > John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. > http://www.noqsi.com/ > jpd AT noqsi DOT com > > > -- Home http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ Work http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/