This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Comparison of EDA software article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
The lead section isn't at all compliant with WP:LEAD. What is EDA software? What does it do, or what is it for? Who uses it? Can we link to other articles? It seems to me that the lead is explaining how complex electronic designs are in order to (eventually) say that EDA software is involved in their design. But then it just...doesn't. An uncharitable reading could be that EDA software makes everything ridiculously complicated on purpose—and I'm guessing that's not the case. Woodroar ( talk) 21:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Should programs which don't have yet an own Wikipedia entry be allowed in this comparison list? Unfortunately no clear consensus could be found in the talk page yet. While the article passed from this to this the current policy has created not a few troubles as shown for example here, here and here demonstrating the negative impact that policies enforced by such an "edit notice" can have as already highlighted here and here. Goitseu ( talk) 09:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I briefly scanned some of the talk about this article and the removal of bias seems a very hot topic, but does it really have to be? I know some tools muddy the waters by having multiple back-ends to do both pcb and ic design and some have intermediate links that can be used to subvert an ic / pcb design into a pcb / ic design but are these really that common? And would it be so difficult to review the capabilities separately? I would like to suggest that the design of pcb's and the design ic's are different in many ways and different enough to split the discussion between the two. If some EDA does both then it should have an entry under both. And entries under one banner should never make any comparison with anything to do with the other banner. If someone really needs to assert something like, one being more complex than the other, and they really can't help themselves but to make the comment, then, I would respectfully suggest, they might be young children who should not be editing a wiki article. Where an EDA does both, the other capability can simply be noted in the one capability and the software gets two mentions and discussion that is not tarnished with bias, but totally focused on the capability that means it is mentioned under one or the other banner. That would be the point really, would it not? If I am looking at comparison of PCB EDA tools then that is the focus wanted. If the tool also does ic design then a brief mention of the fact and then I can go and review that capability of the tool. I would also say, if a tool exists and fits under one or the other banners, then it rates a mention on this page. Deleting an entry for some of the reasons given is not justifiable unless commercial interest or prejudice were considered valid argument. One last comment, when this done, someone needs to sift through it and correcting the spellings and grammars. Maybe I could 'automatize' something to do it. Not having a go, it is just that with the statements that one thing is much harder than another from someone who clearly has no idea, these grammatical and spelling errors are one thing too many to deal with for me to remain entirely polite. PedantEngineer ( talk) 09:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
i think this choice of making titles gives a bit of a bias as it leads to viewers like me think that proprietary software is not free. LTSpice is free though. I think a better classification is Open source vs Proprietary. so i am gonna do that LostCitrationHunter ( talk) 14:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
On second though, i realised i'd have to go through all of the softwares mentioned to see if they are opensource or not and if they are paid, i am just a uni student who started using LTSpice few days ago, i think ill start a bit and leave the rest to someone else LostCitrationHunter ( talk) 15:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
I suggest to merge List of electrical engineering software into "Comparison of EDA software". In my opinion, the list is largely double with the comparison, especially when you cut out the non-notable packages. Beside that, I have severe doubts about the reliability of the two given sources. The Banner talk 17:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Comparison of EDA software article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
The lead section isn't at all compliant with WP:LEAD. What is EDA software? What does it do, or what is it for? Who uses it? Can we link to other articles? It seems to me that the lead is explaining how complex electronic designs are in order to (eventually) say that EDA software is involved in their design. But then it just...doesn't. An uncharitable reading could be that EDA software makes everything ridiculously complicated on purpose—and I'm guessing that's not the case. Woodroar ( talk) 21:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Should programs which don't have yet an own Wikipedia entry be allowed in this comparison list? Unfortunately no clear consensus could be found in the talk page yet. While the article passed from this to this the current policy has created not a few troubles as shown for example here, here and here demonstrating the negative impact that policies enforced by such an "edit notice" can have as already highlighted here and here. Goitseu ( talk) 09:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I briefly scanned some of the talk about this article and the removal of bias seems a very hot topic, but does it really have to be? I know some tools muddy the waters by having multiple back-ends to do both pcb and ic design and some have intermediate links that can be used to subvert an ic / pcb design into a pcb / ic design but are these really that common? And would it be so difficult to review the capabilities separately? I would like to suggest that the design of pcb's and the design ic's are different in many ways and different enough to split the discussion between the two. If some EDA does both then it should have an entry under both. And entries under one banner should never make any comparison with anything to do with the other banner. If someone really needs to assert something like, one being more complex than the other, and they really can't help themselves but to make the comment, then, I would respectfully suggest, they might be young children who should not be editing a wiki article. Where an EDA does both, the other capability can simply be noted in the one capability and the software gets two mentions and discussion that is not tarnished with bias, but totally focused on the capability that means it is mentioned under one or the other banner. That would be the point really, would it not? If I am looking at comparison of PCB EDA tools then that is the focus wanted. If the tool also does ic design then a brief mention of the fact and then I can go and review that capability of the tool. I would also say, if a tool exists and fits under one or the other banners, then it rates a mention on this page. Deleting an entry for some of the reasons given is not justifiable unless commercial interest or prejudice were considered valid argument. One last comment, when this done, someone needs to sift through it and correcting the spellings and grammars. Maybe I could 'automatize' something to do it. Not having a go, it is just that with the statements that one thing is much harder than another from someone who clearly has no idea, these grammatical and spelling errors are one thing too many to deal with for me to remain entirely polite. PedantEngineer ( talk) 09:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
i think this choice of making titles gives a bit of a bias as it leads to viewers like me think that proprietary software is not free. LTSpice is free though. I think a better classification is Open source vs Proprietary. so i am gonna do that LostCitrationHunter ( talk) 14:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
On second though, i realised i'd have to go through all of the softwares mentioned to see if they are opensource or not and if they are paid, i am just a uni student who started using LTSpice few days ago, i think ill start a bit and leave the rest to someone else LostCitrationHunter ( talk) 15:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
I suggest to merge List of electrical engineering software into "Comparison of EDA software". In my opinion, the list is largely double with the comparison, especially when you cut out the non-notable packages. Beside that, I have severe doubts about the reliability of the two given sources. The Banner talk 17:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)