John Doty wrote: > Now, gEDA's design isn't nearly as clean as TeX plus LaTeX plus all > the other stuff. Still, it's *much* better the competition, and can > be improved. Unfortunately, there's a lot of pressure to make it > dirtier. >
With all due respect, have you actually used any of the high end EDA tools for IC design? I'm talking about tools that have significantly more structure in their schematic capture tool but at the same time have considerably more powerful scripting API's that have every bit as much flexibility as we do. And they have done it in a way that also allows significantly more powerful and useful features than what we can do with our current design. With the particular tool I'm thinking of, I predict that I could code up the equivalent of any of our gnetlist backends in an afternoon, maybe much less. That's about the same amount of time it took for the gnetlist backends I've written. > One place where gEDA is really special is the gnetlist Scheme API, > which enables gschem to feed a wide variety of downstream flows. > Rather than changing gEDA into just another sweet, low productivity > EDA application, we need to build on that strength. except that the scheme API is no where nearly complete enough or powerful enough. And... everytime someone proposed extending it and making it more powerful, we are accused of making the tool be low productivity.. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
