John Doty wrote: > > "To the man with a hammer, everything is a nail". I can think of > three gEDA problems that have resulted from developers being scenario- > driven rather than thinking about the general case. Each one has cost > me. I'll go into the details in private email if you like. Why in private? If you have evidence (however subjective) that supports your contention, why not air it in public? I for one would be interested to hear it. >> No matter how you slice it the largest user base of gschem is using it >> for driving pcb and so it makes a lot of sense to talk about new >> features in the context of pcb. > > "Prediction is very hard, especially about the future." I don't get what your statement is trying to say. Because it's very hard we shouldn't try to do it? >> gaf could also benefit a lot from having the power needed to provide >> tighter simulation integration too. It is really nice to be able to >> click and plot a node or back annotate dc node voltages or device >> operating points on a schematic. It doesn't need to be done in a way >> that forces this work flow and again, no one who is actually writing >> code for the various tools is proposing that. > > But complexity *always* bites the user. KISS, especially at interfaces. You're missing the point, John. Integration is not a bad thing /when done correctly/, i.e. when integration is a) implemented using generic, documented interfaces; and b) only an aid to use and not required for it. When implemented in that fashion, 'integration' becomes simply 'cooperation' between related applications. Does it really frighten you so much that gEDA might have a clean, generic interface that allows an external program to specify a net name and have that net highlighted by gEDA? Perhaps it also frightens you that you can double-click a file in your file manager and it will automatically find the correct executable to load and display it. After all, what business does a file manager have knowing about the context of a file? I'm sure you religiously open a shell and execute the command to open each file by hand; in fact I'm sure you've written a script that accepts the filename and loads the correct executable automatically... You might not realise it, John, but you are a fan of integration. It is simply that your preferred method of integration is by scripting and using command-line switches. It is an example of integration done well, but it is not the /only/ way integration can be done well. Many people would prefer tighter cooperation at the GUI level between gEDA and its friends (which includes PCB, whether you like it or not). If that can be done in a clean, generic manner while retaining the power and flexibility of the individual components as a 'toolset' then I whole-heartedly support it. Chris -- Chris Smith <cjs94@xxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user