Re: gEDA-user: weird names in PCB part library

[Dave McGuire <mcguire-atMUNGEDneurotica_dot_com>]

On Aug 20, 2004, at 12:57 PM, Stuart Brorson wrote:
>>> Perhaps back in the stone age, when PCB was written for the=20
>>> Altair 8800^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Atari [2], generating symbols on the 
>>> fly
>>> from an M4 macro was a good idea in order to save space memory.=20
>>>
>> Seems to have totally misunderstood.
>
> Well, perhaps I don't know exactly why M4 was used to generate symbols
> when PCB was written over 20 years ago.  But I *do* think I know a
> thing or two about circuit design.  And from the standpoint of a
> circuit designer (i.e. our target audience for gEDA), M4 is
> unnecessarily old, scary, nasty, and obscure.  For PCB to make inroads
> into the circuit design community, it needs to act and feel like a
> contemporary PCB layout tool.  M4 is unnecessary baggage.  Footprint
> files -- i.e. PCB's second lib -- are the way it's done these days.
> Creating parameterized footprints using stand-alone TCL, Perl, or
> Python scripts would be more attractive and more contemporary.

   M4 is "obscure" and TCL, Perl, and Python are not??

   M4 has shipped with EVERY UNIX-like OS for the past 20+ years.  By my 
definition, that's called "ubiquitous", not "obscure".

>> Creating using M4 means that you can generate footprints in a=20
>> *parameterized* manner, which is 100 times better than the WYSIWYG=20
>> concept. Really.
>
> Generating footprints using an automated, parameterized method is a
> good thing.  I completely agree.  Do it using TCL, Perl, or
> Python.

   Use a scripting language to process macros instead of a macro 
processor, in other words.

   PERL (you know, the Practical Extension and Reporting Language) is 
not the right tool for this job.

>> The problem is that the maintenance of the M4 library is sketchy, 
>> at=20
>> best. It really needs a full overhaul, to make it consistent and 
>> proper=20
>> parameterized, but that is another matter.
>
> Well, it's sketchy because it is an obscure relic which nobody wants to
> support.  All the more reason to jettison it and use contemporary,
> supported languages like Perl or Python utilities to generate symbols
> parametrically!

   If I have to install the bloated pig that is Perl in order to use 
PCB, I will find another layout package.

   Existing, perfectly functional, fast, builds-and-runs-on-EVERYTHING 
tools are not an appropriate battleground for the PerlTribesmen to try 
to infect.

           -Dave

--
Dave McGuire             "...it's a matter of how tightly
Cape Coral, FL             you pull the zip-tie."       -Nadine Miller