On Monday 02 April 2007 15:38, Stuart Brorson wrote: > Ummm, from my perspective, the "plan" is to retain the two > circuit simulators as part of the suite. Both have their > places. Al will continue to improve Gnucap, and ngspice will > also (more) slowly evolve. Folks can use either one, > depending upon what works best for them.
They are going in completely different directions. NGspice is spice and will always be. Evolution of NGspice should be aimed at reliaility and tradition, a traditional reference simulator you can rely on. Gnucap is not spice. It is emphasizing bring in the new, that is what can't be done in spice. Eventually, it will mostly replace spice for most uses. The legacy need for Spice remains. There is sharing between the projects. Since spice models can be used as plugins in gnucap, that means NGspice models can be used as gnucap plugins. When I find issues in NGspice (using it as a reference simulator) I do give back what I find. I think both are hurt when they try to be the other. NGspice is hurt when people try to extend it beyond what Spice is designed to do, especially when it is not done well. Gnucap plugins are intended as a way you can extend without risk. Gnucap has been hurt by putting too much effort into making it look like spice. This is especially true now, with a desire on the high end to move away from Spice. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
