Svenn Are Bjerkem wrote:
On 3/11/07, al davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 10 March 2007 21:05, Ales Hvezda wrote:
> >Anyone who is thinking of improving a spice GUI has got to
> > try Linear Technology's free SwitcherCAD (aka ltspice).
> > It's the nicest spice I've ever used. It's a better
> > schematic entry program than most, too (and that would
> > include Eagle and gschem).
>
> Okay, I'm confused, why are you trying to use
> gschem/PCB then? Wouldn't it make sense to use SwitcherCAD
> (aka ltspice) instead? It does run under Windows and Linux
> (using wine).
Maybe he would rather use something that is truly-free, GPL?
Avoid proprietary lock-in?
Problem with most attempts on front-ending the command line simulators
is that they either cover only one simulator and implement the
post-processing sub-optimal. Even expencive EDA tools from Cadence et
al have sub-optimal simulator front ends. It is important to spend
time to get exhaustive input from the possible user base before the
first line of code is written as there is a huge permutation of
features that will be requested as people start to use such a
front-end.
I think Svenn is absolutely right here. What makes sense for a student
doing RLC circuits and 1 transistor amplifiers may not make sense for
someone who is doing yield optimization on an RF filter and neither of
those cover all the permutations you might find in IC design and of
course I haven't even mentioned digital circuits. I think one lesson
from cadence is that
a) some sort of programming language that can access the simulator both
for setting up simulations and processing the results is extremely useful
b) a point and click gui is very helpful for smaller simulations and
interactive plotting during a debug phase.
and
c) it would be nice if the environments in a) and b) actually supported
all the simulator features!!!
_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
