Re: gEDA-user: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem

[Link <link@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 24/04/10 05:46, al davis wrote:
> On Friday 23 April 2010, Link wrote:
>> Eh?
>>
> 
> Suppose you had instead said:
> ===============
>> .......... I suggest
>>  using Eagle through Darwine. In my personal experience,
>>  Eagle is a lot better than geda, and
>>  it is definitely an easier workflow.
> ===============
> 
> Is this any different?
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> geda-user mailing list
> geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

I hadn't intended for anyone to interpret it that way, and I'm sorry if
you interpreted that as bashing gEDA. Perhaps my choice of words was
rather unfortunate.

What I intended to is that one component (the simulator) of LTSpice
tends to perform better _for me_ than gEDA's equivalents, in sheer terms
of the simulation results being what I expect. I'm not sure if that is
even a problem with gnucap/ngspice or if I'm simply doing something
wrong myself, but I do know that I find LTSpice easier to use for
simulation. That does not mean I dislike gEDA, or think it's bad, or
anything of the sort - in fact, I find it to be absolutely brilliant for
schematic capture and PCB design. That said, simulation in gEDA is only
one of the many paths you can take with it, and perhaps because of that,
along with the fact that circuit simulation is very very complicated
mathematically, it is, for the time being, not very easy for the end
user to get the expected simulation results quickly. As such, for an end
user who may not have the time or skill to work on improving gEDA, and
who already expressed confusion about how complicated the workflow is,
it is possible that gEDA simply isn't the most suitable piece of
software for that user yet (since gEDA is under very active development,
that may change in the near future), and hence why I said, or at least
intended to say, that if the workflow is an issue to that user, another
piece of software - one that is, unfortunately, proprietary - may be
better for that particular user.

To summarise:
-gEDA encompasses a lot more than simulation
-As such, the workflow for simulation is a bit complicated
-The simulators may or may not be as accurate as proprietary equivalents
-As such, if workflow efficiency and simulation accuracy are a very big
issue, then for someone who cannot improve gEDA directly, it is possible
that for the time being, other software is better for said someone
-The only software I know that has a workflow that is faster than gEDA's
when it comes to simulation, and has a simulator at least as good as
gEDA's equivalents, is unfortunately proprietary
-As such, I recommended that software to a user who appeared to want a
more efficient workflow for simulation

I hope that clears things up. If not, I really don't know how to explain
what I meant any better, so you will have to make do with the knowledge
that I did not mean to sound like I was bashing gEDA.


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