Out of the Box Gripes

James Morrison wrote on Sat, 02 January 2010 21:41

But more than a ULP, it needs to be more integrated into the GUI, IMHO.

Argh, no!  Not anymore at least.  Whatever they do is going to be

incompatible with what I do now.  I'll be stuck either not using the new

interface and having to explain that to new people, or wasting a lot of

time converting libraries and some existing projects that will be

incrementally modified.

However, they can make attribute management a little easier, keeping in

mind that many people are using the new attributes for BOM information.

Propagating the same attribute for all technologies and packages for a

device is tedious.  I finally wrote a ULP for that, but it could be better

if built in.  Setting attributes on parts in a schematic is currently

broken.  You can't type the attribute name and value, then click on a part

or series of parts to apply them.  On several occasions I've ended up

creating a script with a external editor to do this.

Quote:

Quote:

There should be template CAM files for a few common board

configurations, like 2 and 4 layer.

 

Why not for all configurations?

Because that would make it more confusing and these examples would apply

less well to more common boards.  Once someone understands the 4 layer

example, they can easily modify to their particular needs for more

complicated boards.

In general you don't want go too far creating the impression that things

are easier than they really are.  Circuit design, layout, routing, BOM

generation, and getting boards fabbed takes specialized knowledge and

skill.  So does using whatever tools aid in this process.

You want to make Eagle seem accessible, but going too far takes resources

from the real issue of making it better.  It seems the quality of the real

documentation of large software tools is inversely proportional to the size

of the getting started guide, which is of little use once you've gotten

started.  Remember when you could read the documentation with MS Word like

a manual to see what it can do and get some intuition on how it works?  Now

all you can do is ask specific question without learning what else is

possible or how the system thinks inside, all the while with that stupid

paper clip in your face that says "we think you're so dumb that we can give

you a silly animated icon instead of real documentation".

Eagle isn't really that hard to learn if you just RTFM, like most packages.

Anyone that can't handle that and wants instant gratification instead has

no business desinging circuits, or doing any other engineering for that

matter.

--

Browser access to CadSoft Support Forums at http://www.eaglecentral.ca

James Morrison wrote on Sat, 02 January 2010 21:41

But more than a ULP, it needs to be more integrated into the GUI, IMHO.

Argh, no!  Not anymore at least.  Whatever they do is going to be

incompatible with what I do now.  I'll be stuck either not using the new

interface and having to explain that to new people, or wasting a lot of

time converting libraries and some existing projects that will be

incrementally modified.

However, they can make attribute management a little easier, keeping in

mind that many people are using the new attributes for BOM information.

Propagating the same attribute for all technologies and packages for a

device is tedious.  I finally wrote a ULP for that, but it could be better

if built in.  Setting attributes on parts in a schematic is currently

broken.  You can't type the attribute name and value, then click on a part

or series of parts to apply them.  On several occasions I've ended up

creating a script with a external editor to do this.

Quote:

Quote:

There should be template CAM files for a few common board

configurations, like 2 and 4 layer.

 

Why not for all configurations?

Because that would make it more confusing and these examples would apply

less well to more common boards.  Once someone understands the 4 layer

example, they can easily modify to their particular needs for more

complicated boards.

In general you don't want go too far creating the impression that things

are easier than they really are.  Circuit design, layout, routing, BOM

generation, and getting boards fabbed takes specialized knowledge and

skill.  So does using whatever tools aid in this process.

You want to make Eagle seem accessible, but going too far takes resources

from the real issue of making it better.  It seems the quality of the real

documentation of large software tools is inversely proportional to the size

of the getting started guide, which is of little use once you've gotten

started.  Remember when you could read the documentation with MS Word like

a manual to see what it can do and get some intuition on how it works?  Now

all you can do is ask specific question without learning what else is

possible or how the system thinks inside, all the while with that stupid

paper clip in your face that says "we think you're so dumb that we can give

you a silly animated icon instead of real documentation".

Eagle isn't really that hard to learn if you just RTFM, like most packages.

Anyone that can't handle that and wants instant gratification instead has

no business desinging circuits, or doing any other engineering for that

matter.

--

Browser access to CadSoft Support Forums at http://www.eaglecentral.ca