On Aug 7, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Stefan Salewski wrote: > On Sat, 2010-08-07 at 11:33 -0600, John Doty wrote: > >> >> Classification is opposed to modular, orthogonal design. Don't classify, >> describe. > > And no, I do not really think so. > > Classification is fine, it is a very powerful invention, and it can > support modular design.
But more often it just supports sloppy thinking. > For building my house, I buy components of class > "window" and of class "door". This is modular design. In the shop I ask > for windows, I do not describe like "a rectangular or rounded object, > with a frame of wood or metal or plastic and with minimal light > absorption for wavelength 400 to 760 nm of the inner. If the door blows off your house, very few objects of class "door" will fill the hole, while a rigid slab of material of the appropriate dimensions would do the job. In catalogs, the J110 FET is classified as a "switch", but in fact it can also be very effective as a low noise video amplifier. The J309 is classified as a "UHF amplifier and oscillator", but it also makes a fine low capacitance video switch. Here, the engineer who wants to make the best circuit should ignore the catalog classification and look at the specs. In gEDA, we have a facility for designating "slots" in components. However, as DJ has pointed out, it is actually a general pin remapping facility, and can be productively used as such. Unfortunately, few can see past the label to the reality. 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
