On Oct 4, 12:53=A0am, "Brad Velander" <bvel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Rick,
> =A0 =A0 I hear your points but how many successful companies or products
=
are
> created by committees? Let alone committees that meet only several times
=
per
> year. There is a reason for saying s like a camel is a horse designed by
> committee. Yes committees can write the standards but what the IPC is
try=
ing
> here goes beyond the standard just as GenCAM did.
IPC is not trying to create a "product" or a company. They are
creating a standard for the exchange of manufacturing information. It
is that simple. You have also ignored my statement that the standard
committee is staffed by representatives from the various CAD
companies. Why would the CAD companies create a standard that they
themselves don't want? I don't see where the standard effort is
inherently a bad thing just because it is done by a committee.
> =A0 =A0 It really doesn't matter what the customer wants, we (a majority
=
of CAD
> designers) have wanted ****tability for decades now, nobody has written
it
> into their code yet. I have seen it presented to the tool vendors so
many
> times. And the tool vendors simply ignore it, they write a new im****t
wiz=
ard
> to assist in converting your files to their software but these days I
eve=
n
> see less and less ex****t netlist formats from the schematic tools.
Reduci=
ng
> or eliminating even working with a best of Schematic tool and a best PCB
> tool. The CAD tool vendors just won't implement it because they see it
as=
a
> quick escape route for customers they otherwise view as having a
signific=
ant
> impediment to changing tools when they might desire.
Of course no one has written ****tability into their tools. That would
allow customers to change to the tools of their competitors and done
nothing to allow them to change to *their* tools. But if the playing
field is level by most vendors working with this standard, then there
will be a significant advantage to adding it, customer satisfaction.
If most vendors sup****t it, then the ones who don't will not win as
many new customers. Yes, that will take a bootstrap of some sort.
But the real advantage for users and fabricators is the utility of the
standard. If used correctly, it will allow your entire design to be
represented in one file instead of the many files required now. That
can be enough of an advantage for customers to demand the interface.
> =A0 =A0 Maybe I have just become too much of a pessimist as the years go
=
by but
> I prefer to look at it as realism since my experience shows me this is
th=
e
> way it is. I am also an IPC member, just so that you know I am not just
> ditzing them for some unfounded reason. They are a good organization but
> sometimes they reach too far and are looking through rose colored
gl*****=
..
> Maybe the members of this standard committee just refuse to acknowledge
t=
he
> vendors hardened stance against ****tability and keep hoping. I feel they
> would be best served to concentrate their efforts on working with Valor
o=
n
> ODB++ to improve it's facilities and commonality across the industry.
And
> with the other vendors to have them more fully and correctly implement
OD=
B++
> within their tools, then you could work on an ODB++ im****t tool with
thos=
e
> vendors as though it was a path for them to obtain new customers through
> providing that im****t capability to prospective customers. Same horse
jus=
t
> dyed a different color.
I think it is a very long row to hoe because of the resistance of CAD
tool vendors and the reluctance of the contract manufacturing houses
to learn a new standard. I also think it will be a painful transition
as the standard will be interpreted/implemented differently by the
different vendors. But given the current state of communication of
manufacturing data (e.g. using a "readme" file) I expect this change
is long overdue.
The transition will not be done by the small vendors like us (or
should I say me?). It will only take a few of the large customers
saying that want the new standard and it will be accepted by the
vendors.
Rick
PS, I don't agree with the idea that posting style should be
mandated. But it is certainly not worth arguing about. Just ignore
things like that. Like they said in "Chinatown", "Forget about it
Jack, it's just the Internet".
|
