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

[Madhusudan Singh <singh.madhusudan@xxxxxxxxx>]

   On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM, John Doty <[1]jpd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

   On Apr 24, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Madhusudan Singh wrote:
   >   I don't think it is a matter of skill.
   >
   >   I am an engineer / scientist who is interested in what *works*.

     So am I. That's exactly why I find gEDA so powerful.

   > I am
   >   paid to get a certain piece of work done (for the best possible
   design
   >   in the shortest amount of time), not spend time working around
   >   imperfections of certain pieces of software when better
   alternatives
   >   might exist.

     Failure to correspond to your prejudices is not imperfection.

   Needing an extra 20 minutes after wiring the net, to populate spice
   models for each gschem schematic (instead of having a set of default
   libraries that do that for common circuit elements) for each circuit,
   compared to spending 0 extra minutes on something like LTSpice or
   PSpice is not prejudice. It is 20 minutes of wasted time. Of course, I
   have a decided prejudice against wasted time of that sort. So, very
   prejudicially, I view it as an imperfection.

   > Since multiple circuit

   >   iterations usually occur during the simulation period of the design
   >   (long before it is laid out for a PCB), any extra time wasted in
   any
   >   one of these steps has a multiplier effect on the overall time
   spent.
   >   Professionally, that is unacceptable, regardless of my personal
   >   inclinations, or ideologies.

     Again, this doesn't happen when you have your flow set up in an
     efficient way, and gEDA is the very best EDA tool I've ever used at
     avoiding this problem. But you seem to *expect* low productivity,
     and you insist on using gEDA in a low productivity way.  You
     complain of ideology, but your approach seems extremely ideological
     to me.

   You do have an interesting definition of productivity then. But no
   matter.

     I'm an astrophysicist: circuit design is a sideline. gEDA allows me
     to set up my processes for maximum automation, allowing me to do big
     design jobs as a part-timer. Much of this has to do with the way
     gEDA plays nicely with text tools, "make", tex, and other
     automatable parts of the software universe.

   I am orders of magnitude off from your work (I started in positional
   astronomy, and changed fields to condensed matter, and then finally
   nanoelectronics). I think geda is amazingly good, but gschem is a weak
   point. YMMV.

References

   1. mailto:jpd@xxxxxxxxx


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