Re: gEDA-user: Heavy Symbols and such

[Dave N6NZ <n6nz@xxxxxxxx>]

Dan McMahill wrote:
> Steven Ball wrote:
> I'm a strong believer in the schematic being the 
> controlling source for a board design.

That's one approach, and perfectly valid.  It works well for simple 
designs. It communicates all aspects of a design compactly with minimal 
ambiguity. But: 1) It doesn't scale, and 2) It limits the useful 
lifetime of a design file.  gEDA users need to have a choice of 
methodologies.  The tools should conform to the methodology, not dictate 
the methodology.

For some types of designs, having the schematics control logical 
function *only*, with underlying technology specified in other ways is 
what works best.  An example would be where the logic design is very 
complex and outlives the implementation technology.  The same design 
might be re-implemented (probably with small tweaks) in several 
different processes -- there is a good chance you are reading this 
e-mail using an example of just that. Keeping physical design out of the 
schematic is also a valid methodology, and gEDA can't preclude it.

-dave



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