| ??? 03/27/08 18:29 Read: times |
#152626 - Yes, but it is Windows' fault Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Andy Peters said:
Richard Erlacher said:
Fear of the command line is a result of inadequate knowledge of what you're doing. Just because Windows doesn't cause your computer to HCF (halt and catch fire) immediately doesn't mean it's better than the command line. So, go lay out a PCB using only a command-line tool. ;) You probably aren't old enough to remember, but there were such things for CP/M, which was notoriously graphics-less because it was bound to "dumb" terminals. I only barely remember 'em, because I saw, even then, the folly of such a thing. Seriously, though, there's this guy who subscribes to the gEDA list who refuses to use anything newer than a PDP8 (or the Russian equivalent) and wants to do his PCBs using a command-line program. If that's not the very definition of psychotic, I don't know what is. Back before Windows, people used schematic editors and PCB editors/(auto)routers, that provided their own GUI. I found those entirely unobjectionable, as they didn't use those long, time-wasting drop-down menus that Windows-developers seem to love. Moreover, it was easy, at least with the ones I used, to generate macro functions that used those otherwise unhelpful "Fnn" keys on the keyboard to reduce the number of keystrokes an operation required. Seriously, too, blaming the paradigm for the failures of specific instances is not fair. It's not about fairness, it's about practicality. While it may be possible to generate a useable program that actually enhances productivity over the pre-Windows9x approaches, how often have you seen one? The problem isn't with the paradigm, it's with the way in which it's almost universally applied. Windows developers LOVE the mouse, and, since they apparently don't type well, they seem to hate the keyboard. Pressing a specific key for a specific function is always going to be much faster than seeking an icon and selecting/invoking it with the mouse. Software developers spend endless hours developing graphic images that make the various screens look pretty, and, above all "kewl" yet they don't spend much time on thinking out how their product will be used. If you don't believe that, just try to edit a schematic/block diagram in the latest version of the XILINX ISE, and then compile and simulate the result. -a
(FWIW: I've completely given up on gEDA. While the tools may be free, my time isn't.) I've had to abandon a few of them, too, but there are tools out there. I prepare most of my schematics in the old DOS-based OrCAD tool set, which, BTW, is available at no cost, though not through OrCAD. I paid good money for it when it was still being sold commercially. That schematic editor is at least 50x as fast, on average, as the Windows version, even if you know how to drive the Windows version (I have it because clients use it, which means I have no excuse ... I have the manuals). The PCB router is also MUCH faster, though just as murky, as the Windows one, and I've seen no recent logic simulators that will handle PALs from one mfg, CPLD's from another, and generic "family" logic together as OrCAD's VST does. Moreover, there's an escape to PSpice, which I find useful, at times. While the PCB router is adequate for nearly anything, it is probably not quite as good as Cadence's Allegro. One can, of course, import from the DOS version to the Windows version just to verify that, but I've never done it. ... It's fully documented ... and it's FREE! RE |
