Re: gEDA-user: General Layers questions

[DJ Delorie <dj@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> The right kind of flexibility is even more important
> to the developers than to the users.

Since you're not a pcb developer, how can you know what the right kind
of flexibility is?

> In your sense, you have no idea what the "space of the possible" is
> for the integers.

Of course I do.  It's aleph null, the set of counting numbers.
Possibly the set of whole numbers, if you don't count negation as a
separate operation.  Plus or minus zero.

> Yet all integers can be represented by strings of two digits. Not
> much of a developer burden.

It is if you're designing a watch.  Offering the user a string of ones
and zeros doesn't make a usable product.

> Ales did an incredible job of representing the "space of the
> possible" for schematics with a very clean bottom level. The
> troublesome issues in gEDA come from upper levels that fail to
> respect its generality. But there are far fewer issues there than
> there are with pcb.

The problem with geda is that the lower leves are *so* flexible, that
there was no semantic consistency, no intrinsic model for the upper
levels to follow.  The results were sadly predictable.


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