All programs have bugs. I only asked why people think it IS reliable.

I am aware of its existence only from the frequent mentions made on
newsgroups.

Why do the arguments continue after Spice has arbitrated?

I have no reason to think Roy's opinion of Spice is anything other than
true.

But whatever it is, it is not a device intended to be used as a means of
instructing learners on the theory of electrical circuits. All programs
have many limitations which eventually always become serious and which are
UNKNOWN to the user. Very often they are unknown even to the programmer.
Limitations should not be allowed to cross over the borders of knowledge.
Programs should not be worshipped for always telling the gospel truth. They
don't.

For example, a sensible circuit designer invariably checks the output of a
program by making a hardware prototype - or several. Why? Because he
trusts neither himself nor the program!
----
Reg

"Steve Evans" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:35:00 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Reg Edwards wrote:
. . .
The only way of accumulating confidence in a computer program is to use
it
and compare results with what you are already aware of as being true. .
..
. . .

SPICE has been used for decades in the design of countless products that
you undoubtedly use daily. It's an extremely useful and valuable tool,
without which many modern designs simply wouldn't be possible.

Here again, Roy I"m confused. You say its indespensible; Reg Edwards
says its' unreliable. Who am I to beleive? When the experts disagree,
its imposible to form a reliable conculsion.
--

Fat, sugar, salt, beer: the four essentials for a healthy diet.