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

[Geoff Swan <shinobi.jack@xxxxxxxxx>]

   <snip>

   >> 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".



   Heh my point exactly. The canvas could have had anything from a 2 year
   olds scribbling to a Dali. The value of this canvas is that da Vinci
   chose to use it and decided it didn't need a wilting clock. However
   my analogy was meant to illustrate the value of code on an otherwise
   idle processor. I think we have now transitioned to talking about
   adding code to an existing codebase which is obviously quite
   different.



   >> 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.

   <snip>

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

   <snip>

   I agree completely.



   >> 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.



   I was not in the least trying to suggest that gEDA lacks capability,
   much less seriously lacks capability. As stated I am constantly
   impressed at the use and users gEDA attracts.



   I am only relatively new to gEDA and am yet to do any serious design
   work with it. However as I work in the electronic design industry I
   have been following the mailing list quite keenly for 6 months or so
   now and playing with small designs in gEDA as I go along. It seems to
   me that gEDA is something of paradigm shift in terms of standard EDA.
   If you try and compare it superficially to a tightly integrated EDA
   such as Altium or Eagle then invariably there will be shortcomings. I
   am impressed that gschem can be part of a VLSI design process. I have
   realised I need to get a better understanding of the various interfaces
   that gEDA provides for integrating with other tools. I look forward to
   hearing more about how people on this list have integrated gEDA with
   their workflow, and what improvements or changes they think would be
   helpful. Discussions about workflow and improvements lead me to recheck
   my own workflow and understanding of what is possible with gEDA. I do
   believe there is a solution that can allow better integration between
   gschem and pcb and component/footprint libraries that doesn't detract
   from the flexibility of gEDAs various workflows.



   cheers,



   Geoff


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