Re: gEDA-user: Pressing = key causes PCB to freeze for a few minutes
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:29:46PM +0200, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
Peter Clifton wrote:
the two '=' or remove the whole part 'a={= Key=}', what will
remove this key-binding for this menu-item.
Yes, I can recommend removing this key binding.
I do in my local builds for the same reason, plus the fact that
sometimes the optimiser makes mistakes and causes shorts on my boards!
Another candidate is the short cut to Auto-Optimize. This is supposed
to be Shift+=. However, on German keyboards you have to type [shift-0]
to get the = character. What would I type to get Shift+= ?
Same on Spanish keyboards.
By the way, my pcb log window is always littered with lots
of 'Key not tied to an action message because the | key
(short cut for thin draw) is a third level key on Spanish keyboards.
I'm sure other languages use even more modifiers, but could
someone apply the following patch:
diff --git a/src/hid/lesstif/menu.c b/src/hid/lesstif/menu.c
index 297768b..8de2952 100644
--- a/src/hid/lesstif/menu.c
+++ b/src/hid/lesstif/menu.c
@@ -1140,6 +1140,7 @@ lesstif_key_event (XKeyEvent * e)
case XK_Super_R:
case XK_Hyper_L:
case XK_Hyper_R:
+case XK_ISO_Level3_Shift:
return 1;
}
Gabriel
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On 17/05/11 02:44, DJ Delorie wrote: I've always been interested in CAD programs and thought of making a schematic/pcb one from scratch. I've never truly understood why people would rewrite a (potentially) huge application set just because. Why not start with the existing tools and just rewrite the parts you're interested in? Like, start with pcb's HID modules but swap out the core? (and if you really want to get *that* involved in pcb layout tools, there *are* parts of pcb that could stand to be ripped out and replaced... ;) Hi, A schematic/pcb editor is not huge unless it's done in an inelegant way. A very first task i would do is create a decent gui for drawing the symbol and footprint in the schematic/pcb library, and make a decent library browser. Then i would make a drawing mode so that whatever symbol i click on in the schematic, will appear under the mouse in the pcb. Likewise, clicking a pcb symbol hilights it in the schematic. I'd design everything from the ground up to decent reverse annotations so that pin and gate swapping in the pcb appears in the schematic. Hierarchical schematics is a must too. By serializing all the gui actions internally, undo/redo and scripting is easy to add. Creating a schematic and pcb should be done productively within the first hour of never having used the program, yet have no limitations for power users. Everything in geda is 180deg opposite to what i'd do. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Pressing = key causes PCB to freeze for a few minutes
On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 10:11 +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote: I'm sure other languages use even more modifiers, but could someone apply the following patch: Committed, thanks! I made the equivalent change to the GTK HID whilst I was at it, and wrote a commit message for you. I look forward to reviewing any more patches you have for gEDA and PCB. commit ccb2e68847996fb65fac0041be6b2b91501e62cb Author: Gabriel Paubert paub...@iram.es Date: Tue May 17 11:44:01 2011 +0100 Lesstif + GTK HIDs: Ignore ISO Level3 shift modifier key This key press is found on some international keyboards (e.g. Spanish). If we don't ignore it, PCB complains about the key not being tied to an action when it is pressed. From the committer, Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk ... Thanks to Gabriel for reporting this and providing the patch for Lesstif. I have updated the patch to make the equivalent change to the GTK HID as well. Signed-off-By: Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk -- Peter Clifton Electrical Engineering Division, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, 9, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!) Tel: +44 (0)1223 748328 - (Shared lab phone, ask for me) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 20:36 +1000, Russell Shaw wrote: On 17/05/11 02:44, DJ Delorie wrote: I've always been interested in CAD programs and thought of making a schematic/pcb one from scratch. I've never truly understood why people would rewrite a (potentially) huge application set just because. Why not start with the existing tools and just rewrite the parts you're interested in? Like, start with pcb's HID modules but swap out the core? (and if you really want to get *that* involved in pcb layout tools, there *are* parts of pcb that could stand to be ripped out and replaced... ;) Hi, A schematic/pcb editor is not huge unless it's done in an inelegant way. Core features in the PCB editor can be pretty complex. We have a lot of code for dealing with polygon geometry, and I wouldn't even know where to start when in comes to the auto-router and topo-router! [...] Creating a schematic and pcb should be done productively within the first hour of never having used the program, yet have no limitations for power users. Always a good aim to have. Granted gEDA can do better in this regard, but IMO gschem and PCB are very intuitive for drawing with. (Perhaps the bias of experience applies here). What I would concede is that our forward / backwards annotation and cross probing work-flows are pretty un-discoverable. These are all things we aim to improve, but it is not an instant change. Knowing the gEDA and PCB code bases well, I strongly feel that it would be less work (and more productive) to slowly refactor and fix those. It is almost certain that you will be able to build these features from scratch in less time than it takes to refactor all the old code, BUT - you would also have to implement a TON of features which already work. Everything in geda is 180deg opposite to what i'd do. In terms of code, UI design, architecture design? There is no wrong answer here of course, and there are plenty of things in gEDA which I would not implement the same had I written them myself. Please feel free (as far as licenses are compatible), to borrow any bits of code from gEDA as you bootstrap your efforts. It would be interesting to see another project develop where different ideas can be tested without the burden of legacy code and user-base. I hope that if you continue with this, we can share some ideas - and perhaps help improve gEDA in the process. Finally, this has become a little off-topic for geda-user (which has a very wide audience, not all interested in development details - especially as this case sounds to be heading, of new, non-gEDA tools!) Perhaps you could apply to geda-dev and move any development discussion there? -- Peter Clifton Electrical Engineering Division, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, 9, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!) Tel: +44 (0)1223 748328 - (Shared lab phone, ask for me) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 20:36 +1000, Russell Shaw wrote: On 17/05/11 02:44, DJ Delorie wrote: Hi, A schematic/pcb editor is not huge unless it's done in an inelegant way. A very first task i would do is create a decent gui for drawing the symbol and footprint in the schematic/pcb library, and make a decent library browser. Then i would make a drawing mode so that whatever symbol i click on in the schematic, will appear under the mouse in the pcb. Likewise, clicking a pcb symbol hilights it in the schematic. I'd design everything from the ground up to decent reverse annotations so that pin and gate swapping in the pcb appears in the schematic. Hierarchical schematics is a must too. By serializing all the gui actions internally, undo/redo and scripting is easy to add. Creating a schematic and pcb should be done productively within the first hour of never having used the program, yet have no limitations for power users. Everything in geda is 180deg opposite to what i'd do. gEDA/PCB may be not the ultimate tools, but they work not bad, when you have learned to use them. (I guess for KiCAD it is similar) Most other commercial tools, like the popular eagle, or the more than 10k Euro professional tools, needs a long learning period. I was told that companies consider a 3 month learning period with seminars for employees when they switch their 10k professionals tools. EDA design is different from custom office tools! And an application interface is not bad, just because it is not like latest Apple/Windows style. I really would be happy if we can try YOUR EDA suite soon -- but I know how fast these great projects can fail. Your sentence A very first task i would do is create a decent gui for drawing the symbol and footprint in the schematic/pcb library, and make a decent library browser. makes me not really confident. Best regards, Stefan Salewski ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On May 17, 2011, at 4:36 AM, Russell Shaw wrote: Hi, A schematic/pcb editor is not huge unless it's done in an inelegant way. A very first task i would do is create a decent gui for drawing the symbol and footprint in the schematic/pcb library, and make a decent library browser. Then i would make a drawing mode so that whatever symbol i click on in the schematic, will appear under the mouse in the pcb. Likewise, clicking a pcb symbol hilights it in the schematic. I'd design everything from the ground up to decent reverse annotations so that pin and gate swapping in the pcb appears in the schematic. Hierarchical schematics is a must too. OK, you want an integrated tool. Integrated tools are great: I have a nice, handy multitool on my belt. It's the tool I use most. By serializing all the gui actions internally, undo/redo and scripting is easy to add. Creating a schematic and pcb should be done productively within the first hour of never having used the program, yet have no limitations for power users. Impossible. A multitool cannot do all of the things a well-stocked workshop can. The architectures are different. Your program will probably never export designs to other layout programs. It will never support a variety of simulators. It will never support symbolic circuit analysis. It will never support scripted documentation generation. Or the other things in the open-ended list a toolkit can support. That's fine for an integrated tool: target the specific flow you want. It's no doubt what the majority of users would prefer, at least at the start, and gEDA will still be around for those who need more. Everything in geda is 180deg opposite to what i'd do. I cheer for your success. Both approaches are needed. --- John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. This message contains technical discussion involving difficult issues. No personal disrespect or malice is intended. If you perceive such, your perception is simply wrong. I'm a busy person, and in my business go along to get along causes mission failures and sometimes kills people, so I tend to be a bit blunt. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On 17/05/11 22:31, Stefan Salewski wrote: On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 20:36 +1000, Russell Shaw wrote: On 17/05/11 02:44, DJ Delorie wrote: Hi, A schematic/pcb editor is not huge unless it's done in an inelegant way. A very first task i would do is create a decent gui for drawing the symbol and footprint in the schematic/pcb library, and make a decent library browser. Then i would make a drawing mode so that whatever symbol i click on in the schematic, will appear under the mouse in the pcb. Likewise, clicking a pcb symbol hilights it in the schematic. I'd design everything from the ground up to decent reverse annotations so that pin and gate swapping in the pcb appears in the schematic. Hierarchical schematics is a must too. By serializing all the gui actions internally, undo/redo and scripting is easy to add. Creating a schematic and pcb should be done productively within the first hour of never having used the program, yet have no limitations for power users. Everything in geda is 180deg opposite to what i'd do. gEDA/PCB may be not the ultimate tools, but they work not bad, when you have learned to use them. (I guess for KiCAD it is similar) Most other commercial tools, like the popular eagle, or the more than 10k Euro professional tools, needs a long learning period. I was told that companies consider a 3 month learning period with seminars for employees when they switch their 10k professionals tools. EDA design is different from custom office tools! And an application interface is not bad, just because it is not like latest Apple/Windows style. I really would be happy if we can try YOUR EDA suite soon -- but I know how fast these great projects can fail. Your sentence I was expert at using high-end HP DCS/PCDS on unix boxes 20 years ago before it got discontinued, and a few other cad systems since then. A very first task i would do is create a decent gui for drawing the symbol and footprint in the schematic/pcb library, and make a decent library browser. makes me not really confident. I've thought of all the implementation and usage problems for a *long* time. I've been coding on lower level problems for quite a while too. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 12:02 +0100, Peter Clifton wrote: Core features in the PCB editor can be pretty complex. We have a lot of code for dealing with polygon geometry, May we consider use of clipping libraries like http://angusj.com/delphi/clipper.php ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On 17/05/11 22:40, John Doty wrote: On May 17, 2011, at 4:36 AM, Russell Shaw wrote: Hi, A schematic/pcb editor is not huge unless it's done in an inelegant way. A very first task i would do is create a decent gui for drawing the symbol and footprint in the schematic/pcb library, and make a decent library browser. Then i would make a drawing mode so that whatever symbol i click on in the schematic, will appear under the mouse in the pcb. Likewise, clicking a pcb symbol hilights it in the schematic. I'd design everything from the ground up to decent reverse annotations so that pin and gate swapping in the pcb appears in the schematic. Hierarchical schematics is a must too. OK, you want an integrated tool. Integrated tools are great: I have a nice, handy multitool on my belt. It's the tool I use most. By serializing all the gui actions internally, undo/redo and scripting is easy to add. Creating a schematic and pcb should be done productively within the first hour of never having used the program, yet have no limitations for power users. Impossible. A multitool cannot do all of the things a well-stocked workshop can. The architectures are different. A well-stocked workshop is nothing more than a multitool workshop. There's no reason why a schematic and pcb editor can't have tight coupling and still interact with all external tools. The only disadvantage to external tools is that an interface layer is needed. The coupling could simply be an ipc protocol between separate programs. Your program will probably never export designs to other layout programs. It will never support a variety of simulators. It will never support symbolic circuit analysis. It will never support scripted documentation generation. Or the other things in the open-ended list a toolkit can support. A main priority was to draw schematics for input to a spice or microwave circuit simulator (simulator writing is my other interest), and have an easy gui way of displaying the results. That's fine for an integrated tool: target the specific flow you want. It's no doubt what the majority of users would prefer, at least at the start, and gEDA will still be around for those who need more. Everything in geda is 180deg opposite to what i'd do. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 23:35 +1000, Russell Shaw wrote: I was expert at using high-end HP DCS/PCDS on unix boxes 20 years ago before it got discontinued, and a few other cad systems since then. A very first task i would do is create a decent gui for drawing the symbol and footprint in the schematic/pcb library, and make a decent library browser. makes me not really confident. I've thought of all the implementation and usage problems for a *long* time. I've been coding on lower level problems for quite a while too. Great -- the FOSS EDA world really needs some more smart and active people. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On 17/05/11 23:43, Stefan Salewski wrote: On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 23:35 +1000, Russell Shaw wrote: I was expert at using high-end HP DCS/PCDS on unix boxes 20 years ago before it got discontinued, and a few other cad systems since then. A very first task i would do is create a decent gui for drawing the symbol and footprint in the schematic/pcb library, and make a decent library browser. makes me not really confident. I've thought of all the implementation and usage problems for a *long* time. I've been coding on lower level problems for quite a while too. Great -- the FOSS EDA world really needs some more smart and active people. Instead of blindly reinventing the wheel, i always look in detail at what currently exists. The more i figure out geda, maybe i could do something with it. It's just that i have to do it at arms length because i can't stand using it. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On May 17, 2011, at 7:45 AM, Russell Shaw wrote: A well-stocked workshop is nothing more than a multitool workshop. With that attitude, you'll botch the job. There's no reason why a schematic and pcb editor can't have tight coupling and still interact with all external tools. The architectures are different. To flexibly interact with external tools, you need the interfaces to be simple text files. Anything more complex is a serious barrier, in general. The only disadvantage to external tools is that an interface layer is needed. A separate piece of complex code for every interface, yes. This isn't too bad in gEDA, because we don't try to integrate the diverse collection of downstream tools with gschem: it's a pretty clean, simple flow. The coupling could simply be an ipc protocol between separate programs. Specialized IPC is good in its place. General-purpose IPC is complex, fragile, and always less flexible than intended. --- John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. This message contains technical discussion involving difficult issues. No personal disrespect or malice is intended. If you perceive such, your perception is simply wrong. I'm a busy person, and in my business go along to get along causes mission failures and sometimes kills people, so I tend to be a bit blunt. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On 18/05/11 00:15, John Doty wrote: On May 17, 2011, at 7:45 AM, Russell Shaw wrote: A well-stocked workshop is nothing more than a multitool workshop. With that attitude, you'll botch the job. There's no reason why a schematic and pcb editor can't have tight coupling and still interact with all external tools. The architectures are different. To flexibly interact with external tools, you need the interfaces to be simple text files. Anything more complex is a serious barrier, in general. That's why the matching pcb/schematic editors will work seamlessly, but external tools will only work by importing and exporting file formats. If an external tool had a way of remote control by scripting, then some degree of closer coupling between the tools could be done. The only disadvantage to external tools is that an interface layer is needed. A separate piece of complex code for every interface, yes. This isn't too bad in gEDA, because we don't try to integrate the diverse collection of downstream tools with gschem: it's a pretty clean, simple flow. The coupling could simply be an ipc protocol between separate programs. Specialized IPC is good in its place. General-purpose IPC is complex, fragile, and always less flexible than intended. Agreed. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 23:59 +1000, Russell Shaw wrote: Instead of blindly reinventing the wheel, i always look in detail at what currently exists. Maybe KiCAD is a better starting point for you? Written in C++ with wxWidgets, it is available for multiple OS including windows. Here in Germany KiCad is more popular than gEDA/PCB, even for Linux users. I do not really understand this, I have never find time and motivation to really test KiCad myself. While gEDA/PCB has some serious users and a large list of projects done with gEDA, KiCAD users seems to be more childreen type, making boards with a power LED and a led driver chip... On the KiCAD developer mailing list there is much activity, but there are only a few really smart and active developers, so development progress is slow. Indeed, nearly all windows KiCAD users seems to be only consumers, without any contributions. And there is Fritzing or Qucs -- Qucs has schematics and simulation support, but PCB backend is missing. Once I had the strange idea to implement a PCB or schematics mode for inkscape. Really crazy. Best wishes, Stefan Salewski ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On 18/05/11 00:30, Stefan Salewski wrote: On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 23:59 +1000, Russell Shaw wrote: Instead of blindly reinventing the wheel, i always look in detail at what currently exists. Maybe KiCAD is a better starting point for you? Written in C++ with wxWidgets, it is available for multiple OS including windows. Here in Germany KiCad is more popular than gEDA/PCB, even for Linux users. I do not really understand this, I have never find time and motivation to really test KiCad myself. While gEDA/PCB has some serious users and a large list of projects done with gEDA, KiCAD users seems to be more childreen type, making boards with a power LED and a led driver chip... On the KiCAD developer mailing list there is much activity, but there are only a few really smart and active developers, so development progress is slow. Indeed, nearly all windows KiCAD users seems to be only consumers, without any contributions. And there is Fritzing or Qucs -- Qucs has schematics and simulation support, but PCB backend is missing. Once I had the strange idea to implement a PCB or schematics mode for inkscape. Really crazy. The problem with KiCAD is 1) C++, 2) Qt. C++ was a *really* bad idea. Qt i don't like because it was fundamentally architected just for the sake of hiding code from users using the MOC preprocessor that used to be closed source. Anyway, it's C++ too. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On 18/05/11 00:30, Stefan Salewski wrote: On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 23:59 +1000, Russell Shaw wrote: Instead of blindly reinventing the wheel, i always look in detail at what currently exists. Maybe KiCAD is a better starting point for you? Written in C++ with wxWidgets, it is available for multiple OS including windows. Here in Germany KiCad is more popular than gEDA/PCB, even for Linux users. I do not really understand this, I have never find time and motivation to really test KiCad myself. While gEDA/PCB has some serious users and a large list of projects done with gEDA, KiCAD users seems to be more childreen type, making boards with a power LED and a led driver chip... On the KiCAD developer mailing list there is much activity, but there are only a few really smart and active developers, so development progress is slow. Indeed, nearly all windows KiCAD users seems to be only consumers, without any contributions. And there is Fritzing or Qucs -- Qucs has schematics and simulation support, but PCB backend is missing. Once I had the strange idea to implement a PCB or schematics mode for inkscape. Really crazy. The problem with KiCAD is 1) C++, 2) Qt. C++ was a *really* bad idea. Qt i don't like because it was fundamentally architected just for the sake of hiding code from users using the MOC preprocessor that used to be closed source. Anyway, it's C++ too. If i got familiar enough with geda, i'd adapt it, but it's a tradeoff of how much work it would take compared to something new. The biggest problem is changes without affecting current users. IMO, more progress would be made by exchanging code between separate projects. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On 18/05/11 00:30, Stefan Salewski wrote: On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 23:59 +1000, Russell Shaw wrote: Instead of blindly reinventing the wheel, i always look in detail at what currently exists. Maybe KiCAD is a better starting point for you? Written in C++ with wxWidgets, it is available for multiple OS including windows. Here in Germany KiCad is more popular than gEDA/PCB, even for Linux users. I do not really understand this, I have never find time and motivation to really test KiCad myself. While gEDA/PCB has some serious users and a large list of projects done with gEDA, KiCAD users seems to be more childreen type, making boards with a power LED and a led driver chip... On the KiCAD developer mailing list there is much activity, but there are only a few really smart and active developers, so development progress is slow. Indeed, nearly all windows KiCAD users seems to be only consumers, without any contributions. And there is Fritzing or Qucs -- Qucs has schematics and simulation support, but PCB backend is missing. Once I had the strange idea to implement a PCB or schematics mode for inkscape. Really crazy. The problem with KiCAD is 1) C++, 2) Qt. C++ was a *really* bad idea. Qt i don't like because it was fundamentally architected just for the sake of hiding code from users using the MOC preprocessor that used to be closed source. Anyway, it's C++ too. If i got familiar enough with geda, i'd adapt it, but it's a tradeoff of how much work it would take compared to something new. The biggest problem is changes without affecting current users. IMO, more progress would be made by exchanging code between separate projects. It seems like too much redundancy to have two projects with similar uses (which i wouldn't like), and i don't like forking either. I'm still studying geda, but if i did some real work on it, it would end up having an extra file format, extra guis, and a closer sch/pcb link. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 00:41 +1000, Russell Shaw wrote: The problem with KiCAD is 1) C++, 2) Qt. C++ was a *really* bad idea. Qt i don't like because it was fundamentally architected just for the sake of hiding code from users using the MOC preprocessor that used to be closed source. Anyway, it's C++ too. KiCAD uses wxWidgets, not (direct) QT. Qucs uses QT. Many people seems to like QT. When I started learning GUI programming for Linux some years ago, I decided for GTK, against QT. Because GTK is more in the spirit of FOSS. But most people seems to vote for QT, against GTK. Popularity of QT may drop, when there is less support from Nokia in future. C++: I have never managed to really learn it -- with a background in Pascal/Modula/Oberon I was never really happy with C++. But for a PCB layout tool C++ may be still the best choice. Ruby and Python are nice for non time critical applications. Vala may be a nice option, as long we are programming for GTK/Gnome. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On May 17, 2011, at 9:06 AM, Russell Shaw wrote: It seems like too much redundancy to have two projects with similar uses (which i wouldn't like), and i don't like forking either. But your vision is an integrated tool, while gEDA is a toolkit. I'm still studying geda, but if i did some real work on it, it would end up having an extra file format, extra guis, and a closer sch/pcb link. Please, no. These are tools that represent extremely incompatible design philosophies. They work well together only because the interface is clean and simple, and avoids the minefield of integration. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ j...@noqsi.com ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 01:06 +1000, Russell Shaw wrote: I'm still studying geda, but if i did some real work on it, it would end up having an extra file format, extra guis, and a closer sch/pcb link. Maybe a good starting point is defining a new extended file format. (For current pcb footprint keepouts and copper arcs are missing...) If that format is fine, someone may write importers and exporters for gschem, PCB, maybe KiCAD. But even this is a big task -- some like the gschem format with position dependent meaning, some like XML, YAML, SVG. I think it is not a bad idea to have separate tools for schematic capture and PCB layout work -- the tasks are really different, sometimes done by different people. A closer coupling would be fine -- back annotation and cross probing. That is easier in an integrated tool. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On 18/05/11 01:41, John Doty wrote: On May 17, 2011, at 9:06 AM, Russell Shaw wrote: It seems like too much redundancy to have two projects with similar uses (which i wouldn't like), and i don't like forking either. But your vision is an integrated tool, while gEDA is a toolkit. I'm still studying geda, but if i did some real work on it, it would end up having an extra file format, extra guis, and a closer sch/pcb link. Please, no. These are tools that represent extremely incompatible design philosophies. They work well together only because the interface is clean and simple, and avoids the minefield of integration. Most guis hide what they do. I believe in them showing the commands they send internally as a script would (or atleast have the option to show that) so the user can paste the commands into an external file if needed. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: Unsubscribing from the list
Hi folks, It's no longer a worthwhile use of my time to monitor this list, due to the excessively low signal-to-noise ratio. I'm therefore unsubscribing from it for the time being. I will continue to monitor the gEDA-bug and gEDA-dev mailing lists. If you wish to get help with using gEDA, please file a question here: https://answers.launchpad.net/geda If you think you have found a bug, or wish to submit a patch, please file a report here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/geda If you wish to contact me directly, my e-mail address is: peter at peter-b.co.uk. Bye! Peter -- Peter Brett pe...@peter-b.co.uk Remote Sensing Research Group Surrey Space Centre ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On May 17, 2011, at 9:56 AM, Russell Shaw wrote: Most guis hide what they do. I believe in them showing the commands they send internally as a script would (or atleast have the option to show that) so the user can paste the commands into an external file if needed. I've done GUIs that wrap scripts, but it only works in very simple, shallow cases. An API that supports GUI well is very different from an API that supports scripting well. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ j...@noqsi.com ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Unsubscribing from the list
On 18/05/11 02:01, Peter TB Brett wrote: Hi folks, It's no longer a worthwhile use of my time to monitor this list, due to the excessively low signal-to-noise ratio. I'm therefore unsubscribing from it for the time being. I will continue to monitor the gEDA-bug and gEDA-dev mailing lists. If you wish to get help with using gEDA, please file a question here: https://answers.launchpad.net/geda If you think you have found a bug, or wish to submit a patch, please file a report here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/geda Don't go dammit, i didn't intend posting anything more, let alone the last lot. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
Hi John, Russell Shaw wrote: There's no reason why a schematic and pcb editor can't have tight coupling and still interact with all external tools. John Doty wrote: The architectures are different. To flexibly interact with external tools, you need the interfaces to be simple text files. Anything more complex is a serious barrier, in general. What do you mean by the architectures are different? The reason I ask is that I am sceptical that a different architecture is required to allow IPC. There are already two IPC architectures in place between gschem and PCB: 1. Text files. 2. The user. I think the general consensus is that these are good IPC mechanisms; they can get the job done. However, they are poor for a variety of use cases that people have. For some of these, the biggest disadvantage is that they are too slow. Cheers, Rob signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
There are already two IPC architectures in place between gschem and PCB: 1. Text files. 2. The user. 3. dbus (at least, we had it working at one point) ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On May 17, 2011, at 11:15 AM, DJ Delorie wrote: There are already two IPC architectures in place between gschem and PCB: 1. Text files. 2. The user. 3. dbus (at least, we had it working at one point) dbus is one of the approaches I had in mind when I wrote: General-purpose IPC is complex, fragile, and always less flexible than intended. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ j...@noqsi.com ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: Slides on getting started with gEDA
Last year I did apresentationon getting started with gEDA at the 2010 Open Source Bridge conference. I've been meaning to release the slides for a long time and finally got around to it. I dont have complete presentation notes but you can view the speaker notes I did make from the action menu at the bottom of the full screen presentation. You can view the slides at Google Docs here: [1]https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dccz7pqb_213gx7nb5f2 And here is my blog post releasing the notes: [2]http://lowvoltagelabs.com/2011/05/16/slides-from-my-presentation-on- geda/ Enjoy, Eric Thompson References 1. https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dccz7pqb_213gx7nb5f2 2. http://lowvoltagelabs.com/2011/05/16/slides-from-my-presentation-on-geda/ ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 15:36 +0200, Stefan Salewski wrote: On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 12:02 +0100, Peter Clifton wrote: Core features in the PCB editor can be pretty complex. We have a lot of code for dealing with polygon geometry, May we consider use of clipping libraries like http://angusj.com/delphi/clipper.php Why - is ours broken? (Answer - a little, but I don't know theirs would be any better) Is theirs faster? I could believe theirs might be faster (it uses a scan-line based algorithm which ours does not). Is it optimised (like ours is) for speed performing iterative computation on existing polygons without touching unaffected geometry? This might make a real difference PCB's speed. -- Peter Clifton Electrical Engineering Division, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, 9, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!) Tel: +44 (0)1223 748328 - (Shared lab phone, ask for me) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
Hi guys, That's not true at all John. Have you ever heard/seen a program called Alias Wavefront Maya? It used to be from Silicon Graphics, but they sold it to Autodesk a couple of years ago. A program for 3D CGI which has quite an innovative popup menu system with something called hotboxes and cardinal menus (the one shown bellow). 200% productive, and much better than anyother existing/deployed nowadays: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/504/polygonquickmenunothingrx6.jpg/ and driven from MEL (sort of an intepreted c languaje they roled for the purpose of scripting such a huge program). Believe me, you wouldn't even think it is scripted because they didn't abuse of it, yet it lets such menu system be 10 times more powerful! I do share many of your points Russell, while I'm happy (still) using geda. It seems to me is going somewhere I don't really want to be in a future. I've got almost done a c-library I wrote implementing this menu systems for my own programs. Haven't looked at it for a time, but it could work with gtk or other toolkits as long as they allow low level event handling. Anyways, if you are really going for it, and are going to use old'good c, I'll be pleased to hear your thoughts and cooperate. Regards, On 17/05/2011, John Doty j...@noqsi.com wrote: On May 17, 2011, at 9:56 AM, Russell Shaw wrote: Most guis hide what they do. I believe in them showing the commands they send internally as a script would (or atleast have the option to show that) so the user can paste the commands into an external file if needed. I've done GUIs that wrap scripts, but it only works in very simple, shallow cases. An API that supports GUI well is very different from an API that supports scripting well. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ j...@noqsi.com ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Pressing = key causes PCB to freeze for a few minutes
On Mon, 16 May 2011 23:29:46 +0200
Kai-Martin Knaak k...@lilalaser.de wrote:
Peter Clifton wrote:
the two '=' or remove the whole part 'a={= Key=}', what will
remove this key-binding for this menu-item.
Yes, I can recommend removing this key binding.
I do in my local builds for the same reason, plus the fact that
sometimes the optimiser makes mistakes and causes shorts on my boards!
For me, the Auto-Optimize step (in particular the Unjaggy and De-bumpify
optimizations) actually removes some hand-placed vias - particularly those
which I've placed up against an SMT pad as part of hand-routing the majority of
the board. I only noticed this today, but I can't be sure when that behavior
started.
As for keys, I would like to see a default hotkey added to turn Orthogonal
Moves on/off (I toggle this setting quite frequently while cleaning up after
the autorouter).
--
There are some things in life worth obsessing over. Most
things aren't, and when you learn that, life improves.
http://digitalaudioconcepts.com
Vanessa Ezekowitz vanessaezekow...@gmail.com
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
That's a shot of it: http://imageshack.us/f/84/shoti.png/ It lacks a two cadinal pointers in the image, as I was testing don't remember what when I had stop it. I also forgot to say is done right on top of Xlib and uses XResources for font color, background and border color. No dependencies or whatsoever on thirdy-party libraries. Regards, On 17/05/2011, Eduardo Costa ecosta@gmail.com wrote: Hi guys, That's not true at all John. Have you ever heard/seen a program called Alias Wavefront Maya? It used to be from Silicon Graphics, but they sold it to Autodesk a couple of years ago. A program for 3D CGI which has quite an innovative popup menu system with something called hotboxes and cardinal menus (the one shown bellow). 200% productive, and much better than anyother existing/deployed nowadays: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/504/polygonquickmenunothingrx6.jpg/ and driven from MEL (sort of an intepreted c languaje they roled for the purpose of scripting such a huge program). Believe me, you wouldn't even think it is scripted because they didn't abuse of it, yet it lets such menu system be 10 times more powerful! I do share many of your points Russell, while I'm happy (still) using geda. It seems to me is going somewhere I don't really want to be in a future. I've got almost done a c-library I wrote implementing this menu systems for my own programs. Haven't looked at it for a time, but it could work with gtk or other toolkits as long as they allow low level event handling. Anyways, if you are really going for it, and are going to use old'good c, I'll be pleased to hear your thoughts and cooperate. Regards, On 17/05/2011, John Doty j...@noqsi.com wrote: On May 17, 2011, at 9:56 AM, Russell Shaw wrote: Most guis hide what they do. I believe in them showing the commands they send internally as a script would (or atleast have the option to show that) so the user can paste the commands into an external file if needed. I've done GUIs that wrap scripts, but it only works in very simple, shallow cases. An API that supports GUI well is very different from an API that supports scripting well. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ j...@noqsi.com ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On Mon, 16 May 2011 16:41:11 -0700 Steven Michalske smichal...@gmail.com wrote: On May 16, 2011, at 4:25 PM, al davis ad...@freeelectron.net wrote: On Monday 16 May 2011, Steven Michalske wrote: But lawyers can use that clause as a loophole to invalidate legitimate patents. Minor side effect of lawyers can use that clause as a loophole to invalidate ILLegitimate patents ... which outnumber the ligitimate ones a million to one. A software licence should not be used for this purpose... As a person with patents, I can't afford to contribute substantual code back, but I can use all the code I want. Because my patents are legitimate. You don't want to open *that* can of worms here, Steven. If your patents are in regards to a piece of software or a software algorithm, they aren't legitimate, no matter what the laws of the issuing country may say. You can't afford it because you have this idea in your head that locking up your code will somehow result in a substantially higher profit than if the code had been open. -- There are some things in life worth obsessing over. Most things aren't, and when you learn that, life improves. http://digitalaudioconcepts.com Vanessa Ezekowitz vanessaezekow...@gmail.com ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: Rounding vs. truncating in gcode exporter
As part of my project to convert PCB's internal units to nanometers from cmils, I am cleaning up and unifying the unit handling code in the core and various HID's. In the gcode HID there is an auxiliary function to convert pcb's units to an integer number of ``dots'' (what the printer uses when you set the DPI). This integer conversion is done by truncation right now, which caused some inconsistencies when rearranging code. So, my question to all the gcode users is: does it matter whether we use truncation or rounding in this calculation? If so, which should be used? -- Andrew Poelstra Email: asp11 at sfu.ca OR apoelstra at wpsoftware.net Web: http://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew/ ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: PCB crash
On Tue, 17 May 2011 01:12:14 +0100 Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 00:10 +0100, Peter Clifton wrote: On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 15:22 -0700, Colin D Bennett wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2011 23:10:30 +0200 I bisected the bug and determined it was introduced 2011-04-30 by the following commit: ... I'll try and fix it shortly. Now fixed - thanks for the alertness guys! Peter, I just found another crash that was introduced by that commit and still exists in git HEAD. git commit: 2ce35292b9e96da38cb56878005aba20891689eb committer: Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk timestamp: Sat 2011-04-30 19:19:22 +0100 message: Convert board objects to GLists of g_slice allocated memory To reproduce the crash: 1. Open the test2.pcb layout in pcb. 2. Put the mouse over the line connecting R1 and TP2. 3. Press '2' to select solder layer. 4. Press 'm' to move the line to the solder layer. 5. Press 'o' to optimize rats. pcb crashes here Most interestingly, this seems very similar to the bug I recently reported, segfault crash after using Move Object to Current Layer Bug #783640 https://bugs.launchpad.net/pcb/+bug/783640 however that bug occurs on versions even prior to the 2011-04-30 commit in which the 'test2.pcb' crash was introduced. Regards, Colin test2.pcb Description: application/pcb-layout signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: pcb bug #783640 segfault crash after using Move Object to Current Layer
Can anyone else confirm this bug: segfault crash after using Move Object to Current Layer Bug #783640 https://bugs.launchpad.net/pcb/+bug/783640 The bug seems to have existed in pcb for a long time as I have tested and verified its existence on many versions. Regards, Colin ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: pcb bug #783640 segfault crash after using Move Object to Current Layer
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 02:45:56PM -0700, Colin D Bennett wrote: Can anyone else confirm this bug: segfault crash after using Move Object to Current Layer Bug #783640 https://bugs.launchpad.net/pcb/+bug/783640 The bug seems to have existed in pcb for a long time as I have tested and verified its existence on many versions. Confirmed with 20100929. Cannot test on latest HEAD as I am at school. -- Andrew Poelstra Email: asp11 at sfu.ca OR apoelstra at wpsoftware.net Web: http://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew/ ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Rounding vs. truncating in gcode exporter
Am 17.05.2011 um 23:36 schrieb Andrew Poelstra: does it matter whether we use truncation or rounding in this calculation? If so, which should be used? I can't think of a situation where truncating is more accurate than rounding, so rounding is always better, IMHO. If you work on the gcode exporter, please consider these: https://bugs.launchpad.net/pcb/+bug/699497 Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
On May 17, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Eduardo Costa wrote: A program for 3D CGI which has quite an innovative popup menu system with something called hotboxes and cardinal menus (the one shown bellow). 200% productive, and much better than anyother existing/deployed nowadays: That's not the toolkit approach: it's just scripting within an integrated tool. Toolkits work well with other toolkits, so gEDA works with the simple, classic UNIX tools like make and AWK, as well as things like LaTeX. With gEDA, once you've captured the design with gschem, you never need to use GUI at all to make data products like netlists, BOM, simulation outputs, and documentation. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ j...@noqsi.com ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: PCB crash
On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 14:52 -0700, Colin D Bennett wrote: To reproduce the crash: 1. Open the test2.pcb layout in pcb. 2. Put the mouse over the line connecting R1 and TP2. 3. Press '2' to select solder layer. 4. Press 'm' to move the line to the solder layer. 5. Press 'o' to optimize rats. pcb crashes here Now fixed, thanks. Most interestingly, this seems very similar to the bug I recently reported, segfault crash after using Move Object to Current Layer Bug #783640 https://bugs.launchpad.net/pcb/+bug/783640 The fix was identical to the fix needed to turn the above bug's crash into a hang again. however that bug occurs on versions even prior to the 2011-04-30 commit in which the 'test2.pcb' crash was introduced. The hang is back now, and I'll try to figure out what causes it. -- Peter Clifton Electrical Engineering Division, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, 9, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!) Tel: +44 (0)1223 748328 - (Shared lab phone, ask for me) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: (no subject)
http://dkgbb.de/dh.php ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
Stefan Salewski wrote: While gEDA/PCB has some serious users and a large list of projects done with gEDA, KiCAD users seems to be more childreen type, making boards with a power LED and a led driver chip... kicad is the EDA chosen by some high profile open hardware projects: * reprap (http://reprap.org/wiki/KiCad) * micropendous (http://code.google.com/p/micropendous/) * nanonote (http://en.qi-hardware.com/wiki/Main_Page ) Doesn't look like child play to me... BTW, what are the show cases for geda/pcb? Projects You'd proudly show on public presentations? One project I know of is ronja by Karel Kulhavy ( http://ronja.twibright.com/ ). What else? ---)kaimartin(--- -- Kai-Martin Knaak Email: k...@familieknaak.de Öffentlicher PGP-Schlüssel: http://pool.sks-keyservers.net:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x6C0B9F53 ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
BTW, what are the show cases for geda/pcb? There's a list on gpleda.org: http://geda.seul.org/wiki/geda:links Personally, climate control and electrical monitoring in my house is done by gEDA/PCB projects. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Reinventing the wheel
DJ Delorie wrote: There's a list on gpleda.org: http://geda.seul.org/wiki/geda:links What would be the top five with regard to public visibility, nerdiness, or technological impact? ---)kaimartin(--- -- Kai-Martin Knaak Email: k...@familieknaak.de Öffentlicher PGP-Schlüssel: http://pool.sks-keyservers.net:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x6C0B9F53 ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
