Re: gEDA-user: PCB: Stale rat's nest?

[Dan McMahill <dan-atMUNGEDmcmahill_dot_net>]

Stuart Brorson wrote:
>>>I think what we need is early on in the documentation to have a quick
>>>and to the point definition of terms.  Unfortunately, there is not an
>>>industry standard among cad tools so such a section (I'm thinking a page
>>>or less) would be a big help.  For example, what we call a "footprint"
>>>in PCB is a "pattern" or a "stencil" in a couple of other tools.
>>>

>>It's not such a big deal for me now that I know what a slot is and what refdes 
>>means, but what about the next noob who tries to use gEDA?
> 
> 
> The terms used by gEDA are industry standard, or are at least
> instantly understandable by practitioners versed in the art.  I see no
> reason to change them.  As for newbies, they need to learn the lingo
> if they want to use the tools.  It's as simple as that.

I somewhat agree.  I'd venture to say that gEDA isn't non-standard as 
opposed to saying it is standard.  Thats just because there is no standard!


>>Since there's at least one program that uses more common words, I think it 
>>wouldn't be unreasonable to expect gEDA to eventually follow suit.  
> 
> 
> Nope.  GEDA uses well-known terms.  I can't speak for Eagle's exact
> nomenclature, but if gEDA's nomenclature differs from Eagle, it
> doesn't mean that gEDA is wrong.

Every CAD tool I've seen used different terms for symbol, pattern, 
footprint, stencil, component, element, device, etc.  All with their own 
particular meaning within the context of the particular tool.

-Dan