Relax . . .

Time to take your own meds . . . : )

I am not on the attack . . .

See below . . .


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:53 AM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] WARNING!!! Junctions at + points can disappear in DXP

> Did you run out of your meds?? You really are nitpicking now.

The original discussion was about 4-Way connections, and I if I interpreted
AJ correctly, he was upset because most of the "two year wonders" out there
do not know how to draw a schematic.

I agreed wholeheartedly with that and went even further and said in essence
that I didn't think many of the people who were writing our software even
knew how to draw a schematic.

The whole issue over the DXP thread on De Morgan, while it may appear to be
nitpicking, was to prove by their own words that in fact many of the people
in these forums, including but not limited to Altium themselves, do not in
fact really know how to draw a schematic or logic diagram properly.

The real issue of the post was to respond to Ian and show that even Altium
is not perfect on this one. He asked for an example and I gave him one.

Remember, this began as a discussion in which it was accused that "RULES"
had been violated, and that the 4-Way connection had been "disallowed" and
was never ever to be used under any circumstances.

> I don't know why they dropped Demorgan equiv. or IEEE symbols (I never
> used the latter anyway)

There are obviously two reasons why they dropped the De Morgan equivalent.
First, they thought it was unimportant. Second, they thought that they would
have problems in implementing it because of the way that people used it
incorrectly (to their credit, at least they did see that).

Both of these reasons scare me. The first, because it proves the point that
they really don't know how to properly draw a schematic or logic diagram,
and the second, because it is obvious that a lot of other people out here do
not either and unfortunately it appears that Altium is listening to them

Respecting the "IEEE" symbols, as I stated in my previous post, I believe
that because they are in fact an "alternate" type of symbol, that they
should be drawn as an "alternate" symbol, although I did allow that if they
were dimensionally equivalent that they could be an "alternate view" of the
same symbol.

>      . . .  but the 256 alternates seems more then
> appropriate. You first complain about the drop, then complain about the
> alternate method.

I complain about the 256 "alternates" for the same reason that Altium
brought up in the original thread in the DXP Tech Forum, a reason that even
you, here and now, appear not to understand, and that is this:  "Alternate"
does not necessarily mean "equivalent", and unless a symbol is an equivalent
in both an electrical sense as well as a dimensional sense (with all of the
pins in the exact same location, etc.), so that the you can flip back and
forth between all of the 256 of the "alternates" and have them ALL still
remain properly connected electrically and physically shown properly in the
schematic, then the 256 "alternate" option is simply asking for more
problems and "propagating" the ability to do "stupid human tricks" (as Jay
Leno says) with schematics and logic diagrams to even further depths of

> Why does it matter? Thousands of people have been 'drawing' schematics
> just fine for a long time with none of the above and all of the above.
> (paper days to cad days)

In one sense it doesn't really matter, since those "two year wonders"
previously discussed will continue to draw unintelligible schematics and
logic diagrams in the same screwed up unintelligible manner that they always
have, and they will continue to have the take two or three or four (or more)
passes at each schematic or PCB until they get it right and get all of the
bugs worked out and loose ends connected.

On the other hand, when we end up with people declaring "rules" have been
violated, and that no EDA system should allow certain things, and further,
when we actually get EDA Software that actually starts making changes based
on these "rules", which can physically and electrically and actually in
reality really screw up a design and cause it to be built with an error in
it, then we really really do have a problem.

A real problem.

And that's when it is time for the few of us who really do know ho to draw a
schematic or logic diagram right the first time so that it can properly
convey the function of the electrical circuit in addition to providing a
valid netlist, to stand up and say to those who are trying to force lousy
software on us that is designed on wrong premises, "Quit acting like your
national bird, and take your head out of the sand!"

That's when it is time to say:


> If "De Morgan equivalent of a logic symbol is used for absolutely no
> other purpose whatsoever except for clarification of a logic function"
> then what do you care if Protel calls it a "De Morgan equivalent" or an
> "alternate version" or an "alternate symbol" It's all the same damn
> thing. It a tool for US to draw things so OTHER people can understand
> what we want them to understand.

I really don't care what they call it, and I really don't care how you draw
your schematics or what they look like in the end, but I really do care if
they delete the function, and I really do care when they won't allow me to
draw a schematic properly, and even worse that they will change a schematic
is drawn properly.

I believe that it was Ian in a parallel post that said something to the
effect of why scream and yell about it (referring to the 4-Way issue) since
Altium has already said that they are going to change it.

That is not the issue.

The issue is not that Altium did away with De Morgan equivalents, and is now
going to give you 256 ways to screw yourself up, the issue is that Altium
didn't know any better than to do away with De Morgan equivalents to begin
with, and further that they haven't really solved the problem, they have
only opened up a new can of worms.

The issue is not that Altium is going to change the way that it handles
replacing 4-way connections, the issue is that Altium didn't know any better
than to screw it up in the first place.

The issue is whether or not people who do not know all of the real nuances
of drawing a good schematic should be making "rules" about what an EDA
Application will or will not allow you to do, or will do to change your
perfectly good schematic behind your back when you are not looking and then
not tell you about it.

It is not that they screwed up and are going to fix it, it is that they
screwed up in the first place, and if we don't scream and yell they will not
take the time to figure out why they screwed up in the first place, and they
will end up screwing up again.

It really isnt that complicated, and it really is not just ranting for the
sake of ranting.

> How is your method any better or any different than having alternate
> versions of a symbol?

I never said that it was better, but I will agree with Altium on one
critical point, although I don't know that they actually stated it the way
that I will, and that is this: Any symbol that is not both electrically an
dimensionally exactly equivalent, is not in fact an alternate, and if it is
not in fact an alternate, it had no business being part of the same symbol
(it should be an alternate symbol). And for those who still don't understand
why, it is just as Altium has shown, because it screws things up.

I am not claiming to be perfect, nor am I trying to tell you how to draw
your schematics, but at the same time I am not going to let someone who
obviously is a "two year wonder" (or less), and who obviously doesn't know
anything about schematics, tell me what I can and can't do to draw a
schematic properly.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To leave this list visit:
* Contact the list manager:
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to