On Jan 9, 2008, at 11:39 AM, a r wrote: > :-) > > On Jan 9, 2008 6:07 PM, Peter Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I did have to resist the temptation to tell him this was all >> impossible / unrealistic. > > That's exactly my point from the beginning of that discussion. > > Technically it is not a problem, in many points ASIC flow is even > simpler than the PCB one. The problem lays rather in attitudes of many > of you and in your views on how gschem should work.
It seems to me the problem is *your* attitude. You only want what fits your flow (and you can't even explain clearly what that flow is!), and you want everything else removed. Well, gschem works very well for VLSI design: I have silicon that proves it! But you need to *use* it rather than *fight* with it. It also works well in a wide variety of other flows: printed circuits, simulation, documentation, symbolic circuit analysis... Maybe you don't do those things, but others do. We are unwilling to see the toolkit crippled to fit your prejudices. None of this means that gEDA can't be improved. Its developers are improving it every day. And I find that critical bugs get fixed far faster than with commercial EDA. But whining about its support for other users' needs will get you nowhere. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
