Re: gEDA-user: Gnetlist -g PCB

[Larry Doolittle <ldoolitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:00:48AM -0400, al davis wrote:
> On Sunday 29 June 2008, John Doty wrote:
> >
> > > It looks to me that geda has mixed the concepts of
> > > discipline and direction.
> >
> > Yes, but the real problem is the mixing of such clerical
> > concepts into what is really a set of applied physics issues.
> 
> Interesting point .. There is nothing keeping you from 
> describing things like a one femtoHertz oscillator or a new CPU 
> with a 100 TeraHertz clock.  Building it, on the other hand, 
> might be a little difficult.

I agree with both of you.  Let me add a little spin:
Most designs don't challenge conventional rules to enter
applied physics territory.  Some people are not qualified
to design, analyze, and debug such circuits.  Other people
are, but they have better things to do.  Even when they
break new ground on part of the circuit, they still want
their conventional control and monitoring junk around the
outside to work right the first time, without some silly
"d'oh" moment.

As long as DRC covers the 90% usage case properly, and has
a clean way to be told "don't look at this part of the circuit,
I don't have time or interest to shoehorn my understanding
of the applied physics into DRC nomenclature", DRC can be
useful for everyone.

  - Larry
  "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research!"


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