Dave N6NZ wrote: > gschem is a toy-scale tool for toy-scale projects. It has 1980's era > interfaces, functionality, and problems. Most of these problems are > well known. Many are even well solved in other tools. > > Please, set your sights higher, fast-forward 2 or 3 decades, go see what > the other guys do, and try to produce a tool that actually *is* excellent. > > ------------rant off---------------
John Doty was thinking of aiming high in the thread named multi-part symbol support when he offered to help with some scheme/guile coding to keep the intended flexibility level of gschem/gnetlist up where it is. Kai-Martin and DJ didn't seem to care about lost flexibility. There's no overall performance goal the developers agree on. So, with no one talking about high goals, I don't see such a problem in John Doty's wanting to limit patches being applied that detract from the front-->middle-->back-end separation of where workflows get defined. If no one's talking high and long goals, why not think small. John Griessen PS I think a windows port would be great for attracting more developers, maybe even ones that want fancy user interfaces. Things like layout vs. schematic cross probing...a proven boon to system design. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user