Ales Hvezda wrote: > [snip nice e-mail] > >> Call me a "control freak" if you like, but gEDA seems ok with that. :) >> >> > > This is an interesting point that should be reiterated. The > whole point of gEDA is flexibility-- I hate it how some tools force you > to work in and only in their narrow world. We (as developers) should > not take away flexibility unless there is a really really good reason. > At least we should keep all the "control freaks" happy. :) >
I think the GNU debugger illustrates the success that can come from the idea. There you have a core backend that does all the heavy lifting, and then a dozen or so GUIs to plug into it: CLI, Eclipse, DDD, Insight, KDevelop, Anjuta, ... If you don't like one, then pick another. And on the backend, if your remote target can talk to the core then all those GUIs will too. I get a lot of smiles each time I ssh to an embedded system a continent away, and then fire up a remote GDB session to step through "Hello, world!" on it. And then repeat the exercise with DDD. :) I think gEDA is probably in the early stages of such a concept, perhaps without realizing it. If you don't like gschem then don't use it. But whatever you do make sure that the tool you scratch your itch with produces output that pcb can understand, so you don't reinvent that wheel too. If you don't like pcb's autorouter, then develop and/or plug in a different one. And so on. Then somebody has to come back later and integrate it all in a meta-program that creates the illusion that they're all part of the same "package", just like what Eclipse does for software development tools. The "control freak" aspect just illustrates that you're doing the job right, methinks. b.g. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user