Re: gEDA-user: General Layers questions

[John Doty <jpd@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Stephan Boettcher wrote:

> 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.

Yes!

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