AF6AY wrote:
From: (Doug White) on Sun, Dec 2 2007 6:22 pm

MARTHA is NOT for everyone. It doesn't have fancy schematic capture or
PCB layout features. It also requires learning at least a little about
the APL computer language (which could be considered a worthwhile
exercise in its own right). There is no canned installation routine that
will magically get it all up & running on your computer, but there are
procedures & batch files to try to make it as painless as possible.

That's interesting that the 35-year-old A Programming Language (APL)
is still around somewhere. I learned of it way back when in '72 while
employed by RCA Corporation...and getting interested in programming
after a very satisfactory and productive introduction to 'LECAP,'
RCA's
frequency-domain version of the original ECAP from IBM.

However, today's desktop PCs have MORE speed, mass memory, RAM storage
than any mainframe computer of 35 years ago at less than $1K US new
off-the-shelf (today's Fry's Electronics ad had a PC with LCD monitor
for $400). We don't really need Interpreter-based high-level
languages now.

I guess the guys that program in perl, javascript, python, lisp, and apl,
among many many others, should just quit? ;-)

....

Three decades ago the UC Berkeley group came up with SPICE and made
the core of that program FREE, no restrictions (source code available
for the cost of paper reproduction and mailing). SPICE derivatives
are the electronics industry standard today.

Spice is an interpreter.

....

I don't mean to diminish any importance of programming languages
or any different CADs or CAEs, but, let's face it, APL is an old
high-level language.

Unix is an old operating system, yet it still seems to get a whole
lot of use. APL is the ultimate programmable calculator. It is a
beautiful language that can do beautiful things in a very succinct
manner.

Perhaps if you actually had used it, you might think more of APL.

-Chuck

On Dec 5, 6:16�pm, Chuck Harris wrote:
AF6AY wrote:
From: (Doug White) on Sun, Dec 2 2007 6:22 pm

Spice is an interpreter.

Whatever. My point was as a homebrewer using a tool as an aid to
building something. SPICE and its derivatives (all individual
'wrappings'
on the Berkeley SPICE core) are VERY FAST. They work for me just
as SPICE works for thousands of other circuit designers, both pro
and amateur (I am both).

I don't mean to diminish any importance of programming languages
or any different CADs or CAEs, but, let's face it, APL is an old
high-level language.

Unix is an old operating system, yet it still seems to get a whole
lot of use. �APL is the ultimate programmable calculator. �It is a
beautiful language that can do beautiful things in a very succinct
manner.

Everyone has their 'favorite' high-level language, each one saying
that Their language is the best, most beautiful, and other fancy
sayings, complete with all sorts of academic praises and plaudits.

My new HP-35S isn't as pretty as the HP-32S II which is also on
my computer table and the programming commands aren't quite
compatible. Esthetics aside, I wouldn't trade either one of them
for SMALL programming tasks. What I want are the numbers
from the results so that hardware can be completed. Both do that
very nicely for what I want.

Perhaps if you actually had used it, you might think more of APL.

Perhaps if you had actually used LTSpice, a FREE download from
Linear Technology and actually built some circuits using the LTSPice
results you might think more of it. shrug

Your message appeared in rec.radio.amateur.homebrew and also
sci.electronics.cad. I am replying from homebrew. I'm not a
programmer despite once having several years complementary
membership in the ACM...or teaching myself FORTRAN IV from
Dan McCracken's softcover book on the subject. I have MS
FORTRAN 5.1 package, bought and paid for myself and have used
it for a variety of different tasks...until MS dropped support of
their
product and also of similar products in later versions of Windows.
shrug again

If you want to get all arrogant about computer languages, please
remove rec.radio.amateur.homebrew from your message routing.
In the meanwhile I will continue to do my own homebrewing
without going through even-more learning curves of old languages
or old OSs just to be with the 'best' tool. Even the 'best' tools can
make cruddy circuit calculations.

73, Len AF6AY

AF6AY wrote:

Everyone has their 'favorite' high-level language, each one saying
that Their language is the best, most beautiful, and other fancy
sayings, complete with all sorts of academic praises and plaudits.

My new HP-35S isn't as pretty as the HP-32S II which is also on
my computer table and the programming commands aren't quite
compatible. Esthetics aside, I wouldn't trade either one of them
for SMALL programming tasks. What I want are the numbers
from the results so that hardware can be completed. Both do that
very nicely for what I want.

Perhaps if you actually had used it, you might think more of APL.

Perhaps if you had actually used LTSpice, a FREE download from
Linear Technology and actually built some circuits using the LTSPice
results you might think more of it. shrug

I have, and I think it is a very nice tool. Perhaps the best of the
available spices. But because it is not a free tool (eg. open source)
I have to live with everything just the way that Mike Englehart
wants it to be. That isn't a bad thing, but it is very limiting because
one day Mike won't be there to support LTSpice anymore, and LT will
decide that they haven't the funds to hire some new support, and it
freeze. To cease being supported is to die in software land.

MARTHA's source is open, and because anyone with the desire to
support it can, it will live forever.

Your message appeared in rec.radio.amateur.homebrew and also
sci.electronics.cad. I am replying from homebrew. I'm not a
programmer despite once having several years complementary
membership in the ACM...or teaching myself FORTRAN IV from
Dan McCracken's softcover book on the subject. I have MS
FORTRAN 5.1 package, bought and paid for myself and have used
it for a variety of different tasks...until MS dropped support of
their
product and also of similar products in later versions of Windows.
shrug again

So, instead of shrugging about how MS wronged you by dropping support
for an old fortran package, wander over to linux, or BSD, and run
the open source f77 program, along with all the other open source
goodies that have been made available for everyone to use free of
charge.... including some damn nice implementations of programs for
hamradio use.

If you want to get all arrogant about computer languages, please

Begging your pardon, but you were the one that felt the need to
slam the MARTHA cad program and apl. The announcement you saw was
a simple announcement of a gift to everyone of this package. That
bothered you for some reason, so you felt the need to tell everyone
to ignore it because apl was old, and anything old couldn't be any
good.

73,

Chuck

"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...
I have, and I think it is a very nice tool. Perhaps the best of the
available spices. But because it is not a free tool (eg. open source)
I have to live with everything just the way that Mike Englehart
wants it to be.

He's certainly open to input from users, Chuck -- it's part of his job. No
guarantees he'd add something you'd want, of course, but in my opinion Mike is
going to be a lot more responsive to the average user than, say, Synopysys
would be if you asked them to add something to HSPICE.

That isn't a bad thing, but it is very limiting because
one day Mike won't be there to support LTSpice anymore, and LT will
decide that they haven't the funds to hire some new support, and it
freeze.

That's a rather pessimistic viewpoint. Worst case, LTSpice simply isn't
developed any more, but it'll then always still be just as good as it is the
day that happens.

To cease being supported is to die in software land.

Everyone and everything dies at some point...

MARTHA's source is open, and because anyone with the desire to
support it can, it will live forever.

Oh, come on... open-source software is, if anything, more likely to die than
most commercial software because there's usually no profit motive behind
keeping it alive. I realize that it's not quite the same in that open-source
software, even if "dead," can be "resurrected" at any time whereas that's
often not the case with commercial software... but there's plenty of
open-source software that's been "buried" for so long now the chance of anyone
resurrecting it rather than just coming up with a new "baby" from scratch is
remote.

---Joel

Joel Koltner wrote:
"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...
I have, and I think it is a very nice tool. Perhaps the best of the
available spices. But because it is not a free tool (eg. open source)
I have to live with everything just the way that Mike Englehart
wants it to be.

He's certainly open to input from users, Chuck -- it's part of his job.

Mike is all aces as far as I am concerned. His level of responsiveness is
very close to as good as what I typically get from open source authors.

No
guarantees he'd add something you'd want, of course, but in my opinion Mike is
going to be a lot more responsive to the average user than, say, Synopysys
would be if you asked them to add something to HSPICE.

Agreed.

I have for many years seen a connection between software's price and
the responsiveness of the company towards the customer:

Synopsys charges a boat load, and they are not very responsive.
LT charges nothing for LTSPice, and is so responsive that I
would not be at all surprised if Mike Englehardt jumps into this thread.

That isn't a bad thing, but it is very limiting because
one day Mike won't be there to support LTSpice anymore, and LT will
decide that they haven't the funds to hire some new support, and it
will freeze.

That's a rather pessimistic viewpoint.

No, it isn't! It is a realistic viewpoint. I have been in this
industry long enough (37+ years) to have seen this happen over and
over again. It *will* happen with every single piece of commercial
software ever written at some point... guaranteed, unless the owner
decides to commit it to the public domain, or open source, like
MARTHA's owner so generously did.

Worst case, LTSpice simply isn't
developed any more, but it'll then always still be just as good as it is the
day that happens.

It sure will, and just like good old DOS Orcad, you will have some people
who keep around old legacy DOS systems just so they can use it. I have rather
a lot of software that was written for Windows 95, that is no longer usable
with NT, XP, or Vista. Am I supposed to keep a '95 box around just to run it?

With open source, I just relink to the latest library, and I am back in the
game.

And what if I need to change it? I won't be able to make LTSpice do
anything that it cannot currently do. That is bound to be a problem if
I need to simulate flux-gate capacitors. Or want a better matrix solving
algorithm than Mike knew to choose.

To cease being supported is to die in software land.

Everyone and everything dies at some point...

The only way open source software can die is if it gets lost so badly
that nobody can find it. This is unlikely, given the wide distribution
that most of these packages have had.

MARTHA's source is open, and because anyone with the desire to
support it can, it will live forever.

Oh, come on... open-source software is, if anything, more likely to die than
most commercial software because there's usually no profit motive behind
keeping it alive.

MARTHA has already outlived most any other commercial software that
was written in the same time frame. As long as the source code doesn't
get lost, and *anyone* is interested in it, it will continue to survive.

I have been running a quaint little editor that Jonathan Payne, of Sun
JAVA fame wrote when he was a wet behind the ears kid in high-school.
It was designed to run under unix on a pdp-11 with 64K-I, and 64K-D.
I have ported(or simply used) it to(on) every operating system, and
platform that I have used since he wrote it.

Before jove, I was enamored by a nice little editor called edix. It was
proprietary, and ran only under DOS. It died 25 years ago. Sure, I can
cart its mangy carcass off to linux and run it under DOSEMU, but if I want
to change anything about it I am out of luck.

You say there is no profit motive, but that is where you are completely
wrong. *I* profit from the open source software that I use. As long as
that is true, I will see to it that the software I use is available on
the systems that I am currently using.

I realize that it's not quite the same in that open-source
software, even if "dead," can be "resurrected" at any time whereas that's
often not the case with commercial software... but there's plenty of
open-source software that's been "buried" for so long now the chance of anyone
resurrecting it rather than just coming up with a new "baby" from scratch is
remote.

Odds are pretty good that that new "baby" will have in some way benefited from the
program that came before it. You might not be able to see the connection, but
it is very often there.

-Chuck

Chuck Harris wrote:

snip

It sure will, and just like good old DOS Orcad, you will have some people
who keep around old legacy DOS systems just so they can use it.

I would have loved having DOS Orcad; I used to use the demo version
which wouldn't save or print, by using a video printer for output.

I have rather a lot of software that was written for Windows 95,
that is no longer usable with NT, XP, or Vista. Am I supposed to
keep a '95 box around just to run it?

Why not run the old O/Ses on virtual machines? I know quite a few
folks who have a boatload of old O/S and apps running under VMWare.

Regards,

Michael

msg wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote:

snip

It sure will, and just like good old DOS Orcad, you will have some people
who keep around old legacy DOS systems just so they can use it.

You are in luck, it is available. Check out the OldDosOrcad group on Yahoo.
Even DOS OrCAD's author appears there from time-to-time.

I would have loved having DOS Orcad; I used to use the demo version
which wouldn't save or print, by using a video printer for output.

I have rather a lot of software that was written for Windows 95,
that is no longer usable with NT, XP, or Vista. Am I supposed to
keep a '95 box around just to run it?

Why not run the old O/Ses on virtual machines? I know quite a few
folks who have a boatload of old O/S and apps running under VMWare.

And I am doing just that, with linux and Wine. Wine allows me to run
a windows program as it existed on the day it was written, but does nothing
to help me if I need some changes.

-Chuck

I suspect a lot of these old and free PCB CAD packages are not taking
full advantage of the current PC hardware.


PC's have bags of memory now so the old pin limited packages are out
of date.

Things like vast processing power can be done to do things like auto
placing of components.

In my software I also added right click context menus which are very
user friendly.

www.murtonpikesystems.co.uk

Marra wrote:
I suspect a lot of these old and free PCB CAD packages are not taking
full advantage of the current PC hardware.


PC's have bags of memory now so the old pin limited packages are out
of date.


That is certain to be true.

Yet another argument in favor of open source.

-Chuck

"Marra" wrote in message
...
I suspect a lot of these old and free PCB CAD packages are not taking
full advantage of the current PC hardware.

Possibly true, although I can comment that "PCB Artist" which is the free PCB
package Advanced Circuits has wouldn't fall into that category: It's really a
version of EasyPC (from Number One Systems / WestDev) in disguise, and quite
sophisticated.

PC's have bags of memory now so the old pin limited packages are out
of date.

Pin limiting has, in the past decade or so, always been a means of
artificially restricting users based on how much they were willing to pay for
a license and has nothing to do with not taking advantage of the hardware.

Things like vast processing power can be done to do things like auto
placing of components.

I've yet to see an auto-placer that's worth using, but I'd admit that I
haven't used yours.

In my software I also added right click context menus which are very
user friendly.

Most Windows software did this around 1995-2000...

(Of course, there's still overpriced stuff like PADS out there that TO THIS
VERY DAY cannot be installed in a directory that has a space in its names...
like, oh, say, c:\program files...)

---Joel