Re: gEDA-user: Idea/suggestion for improving the gschem GUI

[John Doty <jpd@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Apr 27, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Geoff Swan wrote:

>>>> Remember, the bare hardware without any software at all has the greatest potential. Every line of code added to the software system takes away from that potential. This is necessary, of course. You have the hardware for specific purposes, and the software serves these. But one should not ignore the cost in lost capability.
> 
> Sorry, this to me is the most surreal argument I have come across for
> a while. This hardware capability that is suggested reduced by every
> line of code added by the programmer is certainly not intrinsic to the
> hardware. The capability comes from the programmer. This argument
> seems similar to suggesting that somehow the canvas that Leonardo da
> Vinci painted the Mona Lisa on contained the capability rather than da
> Vinci.

The canvas could have supported a Dali painting instead.

Would it improve the Mona Lisa to add, say, a wilting clock to it? That's a "feature" from the "competition".

> I agree with advocacy for well factored code, and agree that it often
> seems that programmers are generating a glut of code, rather than
> thinking ahead and producing less lines but of better written work.

And that requires appreciation of the strengths of the existing approach, something people's wish lists here seem to lack.

> But better that we have poor code with *some* functionality than
> hardware that has infinit potential, zero lost capability and no
> functionality whatsoever. As someone who often falls into the trap of
> not doing something at all because I don't feel I have the time or
> capability to do a job to a percieved high standard; I would warn
> against arguments like these because often just getting some sort of
> functionality is better than nothing at all.

But we have functionality *beyond* the competition in many ways. Let's not lose that.

> I presume the real concern here is that gEDA will lose capability by
> people adding features or functionality that restrict existing
> capability or similar. This perhaps is a valid concern. I enjoy
> reading this list because I am constantly coming across people using
> gEDA in such a way that capability of the gEDA suite that I had no
> idea was there is revealed. I think one of the PR problems gEDA has is
> that on the surface it often does not appear capable (but ongoing
> changes to the wiki and website are helping greatly in this respect).
> Perhaps as more people become aware of the capability of gEDA and how
> to leverage it, arguments about additional features etc will become
> less frequent.

Well, I'm designing VLSI and circuit boards for spaceflight with gEDA. gEDA isn't perfect, but it is superb. Don't try to tell me it's seriously lacking in capability.

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd@xxxxxxxxx




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