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

[Madhusudan Singh <singh.madhusudan@xxxxxxxxx>]

   On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 6:40 PM, John Doty <[1]jpd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

   On Apr 24, 2010, at 7:16 PM, Madhusudan Singh wrote:
   >   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,

     I really don't think you understand how the process works. Can you
     post a schematic? All you should be doing is attaching model-name=
     and perhaps file= (although I prefer to include a library once) to
     active components. Not so hard.

   Harder than having a proper library that allows me to focus on the
   circuit design instead of these kinds of clerical tasks that appear to
   arise from an utter lack of understanding that human beings do not like
   to do mundane, repetitive tasks that are best suited for the software
   to take care of.
   While we are on the subject, just typing up the entire spice netlist
   from scratch in a single window is not hard (and arguably easier than
   scattering it all over the place the way things are set up now) either.
   I can get faster results from MacSpice than this artificially
   convoluted gschem + patchwork + gnetlist workflow.
   I can understand that you have some emotions invested in geda for
   whatever reason, but your statement above made absolutely no sense.

     What you consider "common circuit elements" are undoubtedly
     different from what I commonly use. That's how it goes. You have to
     build your own library, just like I had to when I was using Pspice
     back in the '90s.

   Which is precisely the problem. This isn't the 90s. I grew up on BBC
   microcomputers. Do I feel nostalgic about the things I used to be able
   to do with those beauties ? Yes. Do I think that the associated
   workflow with them was superior to the workflow today (even with
   something as unreliable as Windows) ? Not a chance.

   >   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.

     The real time wasters aren't the setup, but the the repeated manual
     operations of GUI tools.

   Thanks for buttressing my argument:
   1. If GUI tools are the problem, why use gschem at all ?
   2. If repetition is the problem, why the defense of the current
   workflow that requires repetition of the task of putting in pieces of
   spice script in different pretty little boxes ? Even MacSpice is better
   than that.

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

     Given that I've designed 6000 transistor VLSI chips and 1000
     component circuit boards with gschem, I think I understand its
     productivity. You have to use the power of the toolkit, not struggle
     against it.

   Or use a better toolkit that takes that needless, wasteful, and
   professionally irrelevant struggle out of the equation.

References

   1. mailto:jpd@xxxxxxxxx


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