Re: gEDA-user: General Layers questions

[Stephan Boettcher <boettcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

DJ Delorie <dj@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> Inflexible wired-in behavior
>
> ... is MANDATORY if you're going to produce a tool that's usable.
>
> That's the difference between a pcb editor and, say, inkscape.
>
> Inkscape gives you complete flexibility, and it's absolutely useless
> as a pcb layout tool.
>
> You seem to be totally blind to the theory that you can have
> inflexible wired-in behavior *and* options for flexibility through
> alternate mechanisms.  We need both - they are not mutually exclusive.
> We need a tool that's easy to learn and use *and* has options for
> power user.  Your maniacal lobbying for "factoring" and "abstraction"
> would leave us with a tool that nobody would *want* to use.

We are talking about different thinks, I guess.  The tool shall be very
focussed on traces, elements, vias.  But the engine at the bottom shall
be flexible.  The user shall see this flexibility deep down in the
advanded options section of the via editor, where he will be told to go
when he asks for square via holes in this mailing list.

-- 
Stephan



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