John, That was eloquently said.
I would suggest that geda/gaf users at a minimum should attempt to understand the scripting language scheme and its interface to gaf. Steve Meier On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 20:30 -0700, John Doty wrote: > On Jan 14, 2009, at 6:43 PM, Joerg wrote: > > > But I can only say it from the position of a user, not as a > > programmer because that's the domain of the experts here. > > Back in 1969, I was taught that the purpose of Fortran was to erase > this distinction, putting the power of the computer into the hands of > the those who really understand the problems to be solved. I remain > of the opinion that this is a destructive distinction to make. This > tradition is alive and well in programming languages like Perl and > Python (and Fortran is still used by many scientists). > > gEDA is part of this tradition. If, instead, you see yourself as the > sort of "user" who is merely a consumer of programming, I think gEDA > will never satisfy you. I also believe that the future of mixed- > signal engineering will belong to those who can combine skills in > applied physics with programming, as software moves into areas > traditionally handled by circuits, and the complexity of designs > exceeds the capacity of humans to handle without computer assistance. > > 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 _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
