Re: gEDA-user: Using the power instead of fighting it

[Martin Maney <maney@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:11:25AM -0600, John Doty wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Martin Maney wrote:
>> I suppose it depends on whether gEDA is only for those who use it for
>> hours every day and thus find the cost of learning to and configuring
>> things to work just the way they want them an obvious net win, or if
>> it's desired for it to be useful to a larger audience.
>
> I think you have it exactly backwards. When you work on a project every 
> day it isn't hard to remember the project structure and the operations 
> you need to manipulate it. But the part-timer can't remember that stuff: 
> it's extremely important to automate it.

No, we agree, you just express it very oddly. <wink>  How is a newcomer
supposed to automate all this *before* they've learned all of the often
obscure tricks (and over the years, a fair number of times the docs &
tutorials have said the exact wrong thing according to the enlightened
advice provided on this list; or, to beat a dead horse, the right stock
script defaults to a PCB layer stack that no one thinks is sensible,
yet it's still suggested to use it).  First you have to develop a clue
about how it *should* work...  and in many cases, Mr.  Noob either
doesn't get that far before looking for something that lets him get his
work done (been there, did that...  but for some reason I came back for
another go at it a year or two later), or learns enough to bull
through.  Maybe he comes back and has a less difficult time of it the
second time, and eventually sees things clearly enough to put at least
a few of the most-used bits into a makefile - which is, as best I
recall, about where I was when I got the gerbers off to the shop and
had no excuse to spend more time tinkering.  I have so far completed
only a very few rather small boards using gEDA.

That's the cost of learning I'm talking about, and I totally agree that
casual users need better automation than gEDA has to offer - but for
some reason you're violently opposed to such if it gets slick enough to
be called "integration".  :-/  As it is, the people who *can* automate
the process are exactly _not_ the ones who need the automation just to
get things to work at all.

I think you also overlook the value of a GUI integration layer in
making it easier to recall things.  The CLI tools may be sharp, but
they offer minimal affordances, do nothing to make discovery easy, etc. 
And I say that as someone who more often finds himself arguing for
having that cryptic but powerful CLI interface where it's lacking.  :-)

> That's when the scripts are essential. They embody the project structure 
> in a way that's easy to use. It's very handy to be able to go back to a 
> project you haven't touched for a couple of years, make a small change, 
> type "make", and have all of the data products rebuilt.

True, and been there many times, though so far just a weak version of
it - after a month or two's interruption - with gEDA.

> I *love* heavy symbols.

Must have confused someone else's comment with yours.  Sorry!

> We already have a database structure if you look more than skin deep. A 
> .sym file is a fine container for relations, so a directory containing 
> .sym files is a relational database. Do we really need more?

No, we need *less*.  .sym files - we're talking about heavy symbols
here, right?  - tie too much together in too fixed a state.  At best
that directory is like a RDB with a nasty schema - everything crammed
into one hugely denormalized table, with all the problems you'd expect
from that.

And that's arguably the real reason to be dubious about heavy symbols -
they're the implementation of a lousy data design.

(I'm going to have to think about this... it's either new or comes from
a source I have no memory of, and at least right at the moment I'm very
fond of the conceit.)

>> I hope gEDA can do better, so that I can curse it less next time I
>> reach that stage!
>
> Learn make.

Know make; know it well.  Doesn't help until you've sussed out just
what sequence of steps, what CLI options, etc., to use.  Seven years
should be enough for that, sure.  :-)

... so where's the set of standard make rules for gEDA files?  They
don't ship with (gnu)make, at least.

> While intended for software development, it's effective ...

Make is fine, but the "software development" tool that I've found most
insanely useful while developing hardware with gEDA is, hands down,
version control.  I prefer git, but mercurial isn't bad.

-- 
If there is a lesson to be learnt from Adobe's eBook
fiasco, it is that litigation is no substitute for
well-designed software.  -- The Economist



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