Re: gEDA-user: Matching footprints with symbols

[DJ Delorie <dj@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Perhaps the shortcoming is in your expectations.

I think that (1) our tools are mature enough that users should expect
*some* sort of seamless integration and co-operation between them, and
(2) we're mature enough to not have to insult our users when our
software acts in an unexpected way.

> The two projects are able to work together *because* they were
> intentionally designed with clean interfaces,

Irrelevent.  Having clean interfaces doesn't preclude using those
interfaces in a seamless manner, giving the impression of integration.

> One thing that sows confusion here is that "footprint" has different
> meanings

Hence the Terminology chaper in the Getting Started guide, which
defines what PCB means by footprint:

 ``A footprint is the pattern on a circuit board to which your parts
   are attached. This includes all copper, silk, solder mask, and
   paste information. In other EDA programs, this may be referred to
   as a "land pattern". "Footprint" sometimes is used to refer to a
   footprint file. "Footprint" refers to the pattern; "element" refers
   to the instance. For example, your layout might have four elements
   that use one footprint.''

If you're talking about PCB, please stick with PCB's meanings of the
terms.

> And some design flows don't have footprints (VLSI, simulation,
> symbolic analysis, ...), although perhaps the hydraulic design
> process recently discussed here has something analogous ;-)

And some programs aren't EDA programs, but that doesn't help with his
problem.

> Ugh! Yuck! IDE = Inflexible, Dumbed-down Environment. Some prefer
> that, but shouldn't there remain toolkits for those of us who need
> flexibility and high productivity automation?

Please stop trying to push your personal flow onto others :-)

Despite you pushing your personal way of doing things (very vocally, I
might add), a clear majority (not "some") of the geda users DO want a
simple schematic -> pcb flow that's well integrated and easy to use.
Your personal choice is *not it*.  Yes, we want to make your flow
*possible*, but we really need to make the "dumbed-down" environment
easy to use and streamlined, because that's what most people want.

> The commercial package owners have a strong incentive to restrict
> the flow to tools they control, and make it easy to get sucked into
> their environments. They have little incentive to give you paths to
> flexibility or higher productivity once you're caught.

Flexibility and ease of use should not preclude each other.


_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user