> Perhaps the shortcoming is in your expectations. I think that (1) our tools are mature enough that users should expect *some* sort of seamless integration and co-operation between them, and (2) we're mature enough to not have to insult our users when our software acts in an unexpected way.
> The two projects are able to work together *because* they were > intentionally designed with clean interfaces, Irrelevent. Having clean interfaces doesn't preclude using those interfaces in a seamless manner, giving the impression of integration. > One thing that sows confusion here is that "footprint" has different > meanings Hence the Terminology chaper in the Getting Started guide, which defines what PCB means by footprint: ``A footprint is the pattern on a circuit board to which your parts are attached. This includes all copper, silk, solder mask, and paste information. In other EDA programs, this may be referred to as a "land pattern". "Footprint" sometimes is used to refer to a footprint file. "Footprint" refers to the pattern; "element" refers to the instance. For example, your layout might have four elements that use one footprint.'' If you're talking about PCB, please stick with PCB's meanings of the terms. > And some design flows don't have footprints (VLSI, simulation, > symbolic analysis, ...), although perhaps the hydraulic design > process recently discussed here has something analogous ;-) And some programs aren't EDA programs, but that doesn't help with his problem. > Ugh! Yuck! IDE = Inflexible, Dumbed-down Environment. Some prefer > that, but shouldn't there remain toolkits for those of us who need > flexibility and high productivity automation? Please stop trying to push your personal flow onto others :-) Despite you pushing your personal way of doing things (very vocally, I might add), a clear majority (not "some") of the geda users DO want a simple schematic -> pcb flow that's well integrated and easy to use. Your personal choice is *not it*. Yes, we want to make your flow *possible*, but we really need to make the "dumbed-down" environment easy to use and streamlined, because that's what most people want. > The commercial package owners have a strong incentive to restrict > the flow to tools they control, and make it easy to get sucked into > their environments. They have little incentive to give you paths to > flexibility or higher productivity once you're caught. Flexibility and ease of use should not preclude each other. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user