On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 6:40 PM, John Doty <[1]...@noqsi.com> wrote:
On Apr 24, 2010, at 7:16 PM, Madhusudan Singh wrote: > 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, I really don't think you understand how the process works. Can you post a schematic? All you should be doing is attaching model-name= and perhaps file= (although I prefer to include a library once) to active components. Not so hard. Harder than having a proper library that allows me to focus on the circuit design instead of these kinds of clerical tasks that appear to arise from an utter lack of understanding that human beings do not like to do mundane, repetitive tasks that are best suited for the software to take care of. While we are on the subject, just typing up the entire spice netlist from scratch in a single window is not hard (and arguably easier than scattering it all over the place the way things are set up now) either. I can get faster results from MacSpice than this artificially convoluted gschem + patchwork + gnetlist workflow. I can understand that you have some emotions invested in geda for whatever reason, but your statement above made absolutely no sense. What you consider "common circuit elements" are undoubtedly different from what I commonly use. That's how it goes. You have to build your own library, just like I had to when I was using Pspice back in the '90s. Which is precisely the problem. This isn't the 90s. I grew up on BBC microcomputers. Do I feel nostalgic about the things I used to be able to do with those beauties ? Yes. Do I think that the associated workflow with them was superior to the workflow today (even with something as unreliable as Windows) ? Not a chance. > 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. The real time wasters aren't the setup, but the the repeated manual operations of GUI tools. Thanks for buttressing my argument: 1. If GUI tools are the problem, why use gschem at all ? 2. If repetition is the problem, why the defense of the current workflow that requires repetition of the task of putting in pieces of spice script in different pretty little boxes ? Even MacSpice is better than that. > > You do have an interesting definition of productivity then. But no > matter. Given that I've designed 6000 transistor VLSI chips and 1000 component circuit boards with gschem, I think I understand its productivity. You have to use the power of the toolkit, not struggle against it. Or use a better toolkit that takes that needless, wasteful, and professionally irrelevant struggle out of the equation. 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