On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM, John Doty <[1]...@noqsi.com> wrote:
On Apr 24, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Madhusudan Singh wrote: > I don't think it is a matter of skill. > > I am an engineer / scientist who is interested in what *works*. So am I. That's exactly why I find gEDA so powerful. > I am > paid to get a certain piece of work done (for the best possible design > in the shortest amount of time), not spend time working around > imperfections of certain pieces of software when better alternatives > might exist. Failure to correspond to your prejudices is not imperfection. Needing an extra 20 minutes after wiring the net, to populate spice models for each gschem schematic (instead of having a set of default libraries that do that for common circuit elements) for each circuit, compared to spending 0 extra minutes on something like LTSpice or PSpice is not prejudice. It is 20 minutes of wasted time. Of course, I have a decided prejudice against wasted time of that sort. So, very prejudicially, I view it as an imperfection. > Since multiple circuit > iterations usually occur during the simulation period of the design > (long before it is laid out for a PCB), any extra time wasted in any > one of these steps has a multiplier effect on the overall time spent. > Professionally, that is unacceptable, regardless of my personal > inclinations, or ideologies. Again, this doesn't happen when you have your flow set up in an efficient way, and gEDA is the very best EDA tool I've ever used at avoiding this problem. But you seem to *expect* low productivity, and you insist on using gEDA in a low productivity way. You complain of ideology, but your approach seems extremely ideological to me. You do have an interesting definition of productivity then. But no matter. I'm an astrophysicist: circuit design is a sideline. gEDA allows me to set up my processes for maximum automation, allowing me to do big design jobs as a part-timer. Much of this has to do with the way gEDA plays nicely with text tools, "make", tex, and other automatable parts of the software universe. I am orders of magnitude off from your work (I started in positional astronomy, and changed fields to condensed matter, and then finally nanoelectronics). I think geda is amazingly good, but gschem is a weak point. YMMV. References 1. mailto:j...@noqsi.com
_______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user