[PEDA] Testing and other matters (was Re: Many similar SheetSymbols)

Tue Nov 7 13:02:58 CST 2006

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
(Very Looooooooooooooooooog and LOUD Primal Scream)

While I feel somewhat vindicated with Geoff's somewhat candid
'observations', or would that more appropriately be called 'revelations', or
even more appropriately 'confessions', outlined below, I still have this
sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach every time I think about the issue
of programming and Protel, all at one time.

I got pretty resoundingly booed and hissed as it were a few years back in
this list when I questioned the overall programming competence of some of
the Protel/Altium programming personnel, and particularly, the leadership,
and especially the question of whether or not they (All Altium personnel
from the top down) really understood the product they were selling from the
perspective of the needs of the industry and the designer, and whether or
not things functioned as they should, or even as advertised.

My problem now is that I just can't walk away from it, as I am locked in. I
own the stuff, well at least up thru Altium 2004. And I am being forced as
we speak to think about whether or not I should pour more money (that I
don't even have) down the 'rabbit hole', to 'downgrade' even further into
the mud and mire on the EDA Software Scale.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Geoff, I would have probably been much better off not hearing what you have
written below, especially the part about what you can't say.

I am particularly bummed out about your comments about 'Make Library', as I
use it quite often (in 99SE), and thought it was a fairly useful function
that was 'unencumbered' of problems, or what I would (very carefully I would
add) call 'BUGS'.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Oh well, at least it really does explain how something like 'KLUNK!' can
happen, and dare I even think of mentioning that little thing on the end of
the small cable that we all hold in our hand most of the day as we 'drive'
our Protel around on our computers (I know, some, if not most, are now
cordless).

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

No, I will not sleep well this week . . .

JaMi

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Geoff Harland" <g_harland at optusnet.com.au>
To: "Protel EDA Discussion List" <PEDA at techservinc.com>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:36 AM
Subject: [PEDA] Testing and other matters (was Re: Many similar
SheetSymbols)

> > Hi Geoff,
> >
> > As a user of AD,  I'd first like to say "Thank You" for "fighting the
> > good fight" on our behalf,  while you were there.
> >
> > I'm currently reading Beginning Python, by Magnus Lie Hetland,  Apress.
> > There is a nice quote from page 343 that I thought you might appreciate:
> >
> > "...it can be useful to adopt the attitude that a feature doesn't really
> > exist (or isn't really a feature) until you have a test for it."
> >
> > Phil Stevens
>
> Thanks for your feedback, and I'm glad to hear that there are some people
> who appreciate my efforts to improve the quality of Altium Designer.
>
> I have an idea that I could even have a copy of the same book ("Beginning
> Python", or at least its first version), which I bought a few years back
> when I envisaged that I might be able to find some time to have become
> familiar with Python. (I've had a bit of experience in using Perl, so I
had
> visions of gaining some expertise in using Python as well.) I don't
> specifically remember reading that particular quote, but then I did
purchase
> and browse through that book before I started working for Altium.
>
> For all that, thanks for alerting me to that quote, as I certainly do
> appreciate the message behind it.
>
> In the case of Altium Designer, it would be untrue to say that there is no
> testing undertaken at all, but one reason why there are issues with the
> software is that the testing which *is* undertaken is often nowhere near
> comprehensive enough to determine whether a feature or functional aspect
> *always* works as intended (and/or how it *should* work).
>
> One example (out of a regrettably large number, but still a typical
example
> for all that) involves the addon server which creates a PCB Library file
> from the components contained within a PCB (document) file. A number of
new
> properties were provided for primitive objects for the first time in
Protel
> 99 SE, such as the Keepout property for arcs, fills, and tracks, and
support
> for user-specified (in addition to Design Rule specified) Solder Mask
> Expansion and Paste Mask Expansion values for pads and vias, etc. However
> most, if not all, of those newly provided properties were *not* correctly
> "copied" from the "source" components to the footprints (within the PCB
> Library file), and even more new functionality was provided following
Protel
> 99 SE, such as Height and Description properties for components (and
> footprints), and new types of objects such as Regions and Component
Bodies.
> However that addon server was only fully "updated" relatively recently
> (meaning that the final versions of Protel 99 SE, DXP, and Altium Designer
> 2004 all have buggy functionality in this regard). (There was an update of
> that server after Component Bodies were first provided, but it was still
far
> from satisfactory, because at that time their Layer property was not
> properly copied, and assorted other aspects, which had been crying out for
> rectification for years, were not rectified at that time either).
>
> Had one or more test files been created which contained components whose
> child objects included *all* types of primitive objects provided, and
which
> used *all* of the properties which had been provided at various times,
then
> such files could have been used to help determine whether that addon
server
> had been kept fully up to date, and in a fully satisfactory manner.
>
> There were (and almost certainly still are) various other aspects about
> Altium's corporate culture which conspired against the quality of the code
> within Altium Designer being as high as it could and should be, with one
> example being inadequate communications between different members of
staff.
> With the final (SP4) version of Altium Designer 2004 (and some of the
> previous and following versions?), if you write a (Delphi) script to
report
> whether the presently selected value for  Measurement Units within PCB
files
> is Metric or Imperial, the script will report one of those units, while at
> the same time the strings displayed in the Status Bar are using the
*other*
> unit. (So the accomplishment of some tasks from a script requires that
> script to "invert" the value of the Measurement Unit that is returned by
the
> associated function.)
>
> That property can have ("enumerated") values of either eMetric or
eImperial,
> and in previous versions the former always had an ordinal value of 0,
while
> the latter always had an ordinal value of 1. I'm surmising that it's
likely
> that "wires got crossed" when schematic files (also) acquired the ability
to
> use either Metric or Imperial measurement units, but the fact that it did
> happen, regardless of the exact circumstances concerned, is still a
"smoking
> gun" that Altium has communications issues.
>
> There are limits to what else I can say, so I will settle for saying that
> those limits are advantageous from the point of view of Altium's
management,
> but not so advantageous from the point of view of the users of Altium
> Designer. But as I assess that the odds are stacked against Altium's
> corporate culture improving to a truly satisfactory level through their
own
> efforts, I can only repeat that users should be very forthright about
> significant shortcomings in Altium Designer.
>
> Regards,
> Geoff Harland.
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum
>
> To Post messages:
> mailto:PEDA at techservinc.com
>
> Unsubscribe and Other Options:
> http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com
>
> Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
>
> Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/peda@techservinc.com
>