Re: gEDA-user: spNet v0.9.2 released

[Anthony Shanks <yamazakir2@xxxxxxxxx>]

I suppose makefiles are a matter of perspective. What you call
flexibility I call a missing feature. In my opinion a robust spice
netlister includes hierarchical netlisting and other features I
included in spNet that I see out in industry. In your opinion
netlisters should be bare bones and makefiles should be included in
your flow. Ok thats fine. Whats the problem here? Are you always this
hostile to people who try to contribute to the community? As someone
who is relatively new to the gEDA community I saw a huge gap in
gnetlist and gspiceui for people interested in using gEDA for IC
simulations so I thought I'd contribute. I started with making a new
netlister and plan on making a new simulation gui comparable to what
you see in industry. Again, why so hostile? This is the first time
I've contributed to a open source project and never thought I'd be met
with such hostility.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:52 PM, John P. Doty<jpd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Anthony Shanks wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Bill Gatliff<bgat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> John P. Doty wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anthony Shanks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> http://spnet.code-fusion.net
>>>>>
>>>>> More of a beta/trial release, but I've done considerable testing with
>>>>> both my symbol libraries and the default gEDA libraries and everything
>>>>> for the most part seems smooth. For those of you who aren't familar
>>>>> with spNet, it's a spice netlister for gEDA that can netlist
>>>>> hierarchical schematics using the spice .subckt directive (which are
>>>>> easier to read and simulate faster).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Note that there was never any serious difficulty doing this with
>>>> gnetlist -g spice-sdb and a makefile.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You're a real buzzkill this week, you know that?  :)
>>>
>>> First you don't like my idea, and now you don't like Anthony's either!
>>> :) :)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Haha yeah, except I'm not sure what he says is accurate and I'm not
>> sure what the resistance is against a hierarchical netlister (without
>> workarounds like makefiles and such).
>
> A makefile isn't a workaround. It's a place to implement more flexibility.
>
>>  Every single industry level
>> netlister I have ever seen does this and I have worked with plenty as
>> a student and now an engineer in the industry.
>
> gEDA is superior to those tools: it does not take away your flexibility
> the way they do. It even plays nicely with tools that aren't designed to
> play nicely.
>
>>  As someone who manually
>> looks at netlists on a daily basis, flat netlists are very hard to
>> read and simulate slow in spice simulators.
>
> Agreed. But you if you thing gEDA is restricted to generating flat
> netlists, you don't understand it. You can't improve what you don't
> understand.
>
>>  I'm not even sure a
>> makefile solution would really work anyway since flat netlisting each
>> cell separately in a makefile (which I assume John was talking about)
>> would not be able to automatically produce the subckt statements need
>> inside the main spice file. Correct me if I am wrong.
>>
>
> You're wrong. Haven't you studied spice-sdb?
>
> --
> 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
>


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