kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Cirilo Bernardo <cirilo.bernardo@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
[snip]

> Do we really want to be in the business of working around other peoples
> broken software?  I really don't want KiCad to be part of that world.
> It's one of the reasons I am willing to work on KiCad for free.  While I
> appreciate your effort, this is something I would not commit unless we
> are violating the gerber specification which appears not to be the case
> if JP is correct.  What we should be doing is sending high quality bug
> reports including references to the gerber specification, screen shots,
> files that cause the problem, etc. so the developers of the various
> broken gerber viewer apps and make it their responsibility to fix their
> code.

[snip]
>

No, that's not a good business to be in and it only encourages the
proliferation
of bad software while wasting your own time. I find fiddling IDF to work
with
SolidWorks' abysmal IDF translator is enough of a nuisance; I'm only forced
to work around issues since IDF will never change again, I need to work with
SW, and I know Dassault doesn't care to fix the problems. The UCAMCO
specification states that non-conforming implementations are defective and
no one is required to support defective implementations. If anyone wants to
represent circles as 2 arcs I think that should be a separate tool rather
than
something cluttering the KiCad code. My preferred solution of course is for
CAM350 users to get the software provider to fix their defective
implementation.

- Cirilo