Re: gEDA-dev: Fwd: google soc

[John Doty <jpd-at-NOSPAMwispertel_dot_net>]

On May 29, 2007, at 9:59 AM, Steve Meier wrote:

> Darrell,
>
> In no way have you caused any havoc. Please, pick something you  
> want to
> work on and have fun with it.
>
> In case you have't noticed there is a bit of a clash of ideas on  
> interal
> data structures.

Not quite. To me it's architecture: is gEDA a collection of  
potentially stand-alone tools or is it an integrated system? That, of  
course, drives the data structure design, but the data structures are  
not the main issue.

It is very important to me that the gEDA tools remain separate. I  
work with customers who use a variety of tools: it is *very* useful  
to be able to insert gEDA as needed into a foreign design flow.  
That's why I'm interested in seeing flexible translators like  
gnetlist rather than an integrated plugin system.

Of course, gnetlist can surely be improved, and other sorts of  
translation could be handy.

>
> I am interested in an independent comparison of spice and gnucap as  
> well
> as other simulation and analysis tools.

As Al would tell you, there are many flavors of SPICE. But the  
contractor who did the layout of the VLSI chip I recently designed  
with gEDA uses SPICE netlists as input to their layout flow, and also  
as postlayout output for simulation with parasitics. So SPICE remains  
essential. And to me it's essential that gEDA can operate within that  
flow.

I should also note that for that chip design, we ran simulations with  
both ngspice and Tanner Spice (commercial). Different simulators show  
different simulation artifacts sometimes. So having another simulator  
is good. Redesigning gEDA around a particular simulator would be bad.

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd@noqsi.com




_______________________________________________
geda-dev mailing list
geda-dev@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev