[Discuss] CAD software: where does OSHWA stand?

Chris Church thisdroneeatspeople at gmail.com
Sun Mar 19 18:20:50 UTC 2017

Javier, glad to be helpful in any way that I can.

As to eagle's conversion to XML, I think that the explanation is bit
apocryphal. My experience leads me to believe that after having been
developed by a long string of developers over more than 10 years, their
original code had accrued enough technical debt that it made sense to start
over. These days xml, s-expression, or other text based formats had enough
mature tooling around them to accelerate new development, and it just so
happens that it was also better for the user.  :)


On Mar 19, 2017 1:12 PM, "Javier Serrano" <Javier.Serrano at cern.ch> wrote:

Thanks Chris for the very clear explanation.

On 03/19/2017 06:43 PM, Chris Church wrote:
> It is incredibly easy to represent the aesthetic information in a
> portable way, it is simply onerous to convince all tool authors to write
> a conversion or import function from that format to their internal
> tools.  IPC found success because all parties involved found specific
> value out of sharing the factual data in this way: the design engineer,
> the purchasing manager, the tool author, and the manufacturing engineer.
> Thus, there was a clear benefit to adoption by everyone who needed to
> adopt it. Creating the same for the aesthetics of the design would
> require the same level of value add to all parties involved.

I guess this could be customer-driven, right? Isn't it how the Eagle XML
format came to be?


discuss mailing list
discuss at lists.oshwa.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20170319/8e5c23d2/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list