Pspice compatibility: Bus representation in subcircuit call

[John S. Dyson]

In article <bqila2$15@dispatch.concentric.net>,
"Mike Engelhardt" <pmte@concentric.net> writes:

LTspice already is ported to Linux. But the
source code is extremely valuable I don't
don't expect it ever to be released to the
public any sooner than the source to hspice
or Spectre is. There's a great deal of
original SPICE work in LTspice. "release it
under the gpl?" You sound like a socialist
with a complete disregard for ownership.

With careful consideration, you can build a Linux

version and distribute it without encumbering your
work. Note that even if some of the libraries are
GPLed, there are some 'escape clauses' that allow
the use of (paraphrased) 'libraries that are distributed
as part of/along with the OS' without encumbering your
work.

Most of the Linux c-libraries are LGPLed (some are GPLed),
and that is even safer.

However, it is definitely your decision.

(I'd be using your LTSPICE under FreeBSD emulation of
Linux, but compatibility issues with that would be my
problem -- not yours ).

John

 

[Jim Thompson]

On 02 Dec 2003 18:22:58 GMT, "Mike Engelhardt" <pmte@concentric.net>
wrote:

[snip]

You
don't have to be able to run faster than the bear,
you just have to [be] faster than the friend you're with.

[snip]

--Mike

ROTFLMAO! I like that. I think I'll steal the phrase and call it my
own ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Larry Gipson]

On 02 Dec 2003 18:22:58 GMT, "Mike Engelhardt" <pmte@concentric.net>
wrote:

Read the post. It's in your mind.

Fascinating viewpoint. I certainly do
see it talk about LTspice as much as
anything else and attempts to deny that
lame.

I read 9 sentences about other stuff, 3 sentences about LTspice, one
of which is clearly identified as conjecture. That makes about a
quarter of the post about LTspice. Honestly, it was a throw-away on
my part. I had already thrown out the idea of using LTspice for many
other reasons, so had no need of anything but a yes/no answer about
pspice, which I got quite a while ago. The fact that you're so
defensive about your program is pretty fun.

You claimed (ii) that LTspice isn't
intended for IC design. This is false.

The simulator and schematic capture are
intended for the board community. That's
a fact.

You are completely mistaken. The LTspice
simulator is indeed intended at least equally
for IC design. It also does the board level
extremely well. The simulator's IC simulation
capabilities aren't crippled for the board-
level work. But the schematic capture
indirectly is, in that those features are
undocumented so most people, such as yourself,
can't access them. The lack of documentation
there isn't to prevent people from using it,
it's just that there are many aspects of the
schematic capture tools it interfaces to that
are below the quality of the rest of LTspice.

If it weren't, Linear Technology wouldn't
be using it as a sales tool and wouldn't
provide symbols for their products in the
download. If this is something other than
a corporate sales pitch, then port it to
linux and release it under the gpl. Open
source.

LTspice already is ported to Linux. But the
source code is extremely valuable I don't
don't expect it ever to be released to the
public any sooner than the source to hspice
or Spectre is. There's a great deal of
original SPICE work in LTspice. "release it
under the gpl?" You sound like a socialist
with a complete disregard for ownership.

I am shocked. Absolutely shocked to find out you hate socialists.
And commies too? Socialists very much have a regard for ownership,
but simply disagree on who should own what. It's good you admitted
the less-than altruistic nature of your endeavor.

And you claim (iii) that LTspice didn't
do busses.

And it doesn't.

The LTspice simulator certainly does. The
schematic capture doesn't for public use,
but that's a non-issue here.

huh?

...subcircuit call doesn't support other industry
standards for busses...

You still haven't run that test case that shows
the limits of this assumption. Anyway, I don't
recommend passing judgment on a simulator one
way or the other based on what it accepts as
legal characters in node names. You will find
cases that certain odd-ball characters are only
partially supported.

In contrast to you, my statements in this thread
have been true.

I realize that I throughly pissed Larry off.

Not at all. I have actually been enjoying this,
hoping to learn something. So far I've learned
you seem to think you're God. . .

This is similar to the problem of how fast to
you have to be to get away from the bear. You
don't have to be able to run faster than the bear,
you just have to faster than the friend you're with.
Similarly, I don't have to be as smart as God,
I just have to be smarter that you

I'm sure that will start soon. Figured it out yet?

Regards,
Larry

 

[Mike Engelhardt]

Larry,

Fascinating viewpoint. I certainly do
see it talk about LTspice as much as
anything else and attempts to deny that
lame.

I read 9 sentences about other stuff, 3
sentences about LTspice, one of which is
clearly identified as conjecture. That
makes about a quarter of the post about
LTspice.

Gee, I never counted. Let's see. There's 394
charactors about PSpice, and then 338 about ECS
and then 338 about LTspice, not counting the
last 70 charactors of the post, which may or
may not belong to the LTspice word count. If
those do then the bulk of the bandwidth of
the post is indeed about LTspice, otherwise,
it is mentioned as much any anything else.
Well, just be to exact, PSpice uses 17% more
of the bandwidth if you assume a change of topic
before the last 70 charactors. So, your
statement about hardly mentioning LTspice
is a lie, as I've already identified.

--Mike

 

[Larry Gipson]

On 02 Dec 2003 23:45:45 GMT, "Mike Engelhardt" <pmte@concentric.net>
wrote:

(snipped a very sad, lame post)

Since you're counting . . . here's what I said:

This is not true with LTspice as it apparently doesn't accept brackets
of any kind that I've found.

Still true. You've found a number of ways to say that brackets aren't
needed, are corrupt, or whatever, but never said that you're program
can accept them.

The only option is to hand edit the netlist replacing brackets with
underscores - or deleting them altogether.

This is still true for those with netlisters that insist on brackets,
which is what I didn't include, but I guess I should have. You say
you don't like these programs, that they're flawed, and so forth, but
have never argued that they don't exist.

I suppose since the schematic capture in LTspice doesn't
do busses, there was no need to include them in the simulator

This was clearly identified as conjecture, but mostly true. You're
schematic capture doesn't do busses. You said it does do busses, but
no one can use it - but trust me it's there. (talk about lame.) I
actually believe it's there, but unusable. So the statement is true
for anyone downloading your program.

After all this noise, you haven't disproved anything but the last half
of the conjecture.

There goes that bear . . .

BTW, do you ever invent anything yourself? I first heard the bear
joke about 30 years ago.

Regards,
Larry

 

[Larry Gipson]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:20:16 -0700, Jim Thompson
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 02 Dec 2003 18:22:58 GMT, "Mike Engelhardt" <pmte@concentric.net
wrote:

[snip]

You
don't have to be able to run faster than the bear,
you just have to [be] faster than the friend you're with.

[snip]


--Mike

ROTFLMAO! I like that. I think I'll steal the phrase and call it my
own ;-)

Yea, I liked it too. He snuck up on me with this one.

I first heard it probably in the 60's. I suspect it's older than
that Still funny.

Regards,
Larry.

 

[Charles DH Williams]

In article <n7aqsvcb345sslcr2c3crm76kcctq1me7v@4ax.com>,
Larry Gipson <ldgipson@ix.netcom.com> wrote:


[stuff]

Please take this to email.

Thanks

Charles

 

[Charles DH Williams]

In article <bqj879$13@dispatch.concentric.net>,
"Mike Engelhardt" <pmte@concentric.net> wrote:

Larry,

Mike,

It's time to take this to email.

Better still, stop wasting your time. LTSpice's quality speaks for itself.

Thanks

Charles

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 01:00:06 +0000, Charles DH Williams
<C.D.H.Williams@exeter.ac.uk> wrote:

In article <n7aqsvcb345sslcr2c3crm76kcctq1me7v@4ax.com>,
Larry Gipson <ldgipson@ix.netcom.com> wrote:


[stuff]

Please take this to email.

Thanks

Charles

Awwww! You Brits are always suffering from rickets... go suck on a
lemon ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Mike Engelhardt]

Larry,

I read 9 sentences about other stuff...

Gee, I never counted. Let's see. There's 394
charactors about PSpice, and then 338 about ECS
and then 338 about LTspice, not counting the
last 70 charactors of the post, which may or
may not belong to the LTspice word count. If
those do then the bulk of the bandwidth of
the post is indeed about LTspice, otherwise,
it is mentioned as much any anything else.
Well, just be to exact, PSpice uses 17% more
of the bandwidth if you assume a change of topic
before the last 70 charactors. So, your
statement about hardly mentioning LTspice
is a lie, as I've already identified.

Since you're counting . . . here's what I said:

This is not true with LTspice as it apparently
doesn't accept brackets of any kind that I've found.

Still true. You've found a number of ways to say that
brackets aren't needed, are corrupt, or whatever, but
never said that you're program can accept them.

Comically, that's not true, either, LTspice accepts
angle brackets as valid node names or subcircuit ports.
Parenthesis, square brackets, and curly braces are
all ignored for various reasons. PSpice doesn't
accept the angle brackets. But the point is
indeed that the fact is they aren't needed. You
need to take the burden of responsibility if things
don't work when you're the one doing the integration.

The only option is to hand edit the netlist
replacing brackets with underscores - or deleting
them altogether.

This is still true for those with netlisters that
insist on brackets, which is what I didn't include,
but I guess I should have.

Sort of true if you now wish to and that new assumption.
I don't know that my thesis was ever really to
disagree with this. But there's lot's of netlisters
besides the two in LTspice and PSpice Schematics that
don't need the brackets. BTW, I still suspect it's
possible to generate a valid PSpice schematic netlist
with the Snyario tools, but I don't know it for a fact,
it's something you'd have to take up with them, if you
have a legal copy of the tools you're using. Anyway,
if I recall, it was possible many years ago to do that
but I've drop use of that netlister about six years ago
for other reasons.

You say you don't like these programs, that they're
flawed, and so forth, but have never argued that
they don't exist.

They're flawed for some tool integration jobs. I
never argued that they don't exist.

I suppose since the schematic capture in LTspice
doesn't do busses, there was no need to include
them in the simulator

This was clearly identified as conjecture, but
mostly true.

I didn't notice it identified as conjecture, but
it is false, but we're not getting through to you
here.

--Mike

"God can't help you if you're stupid."

 

[Mike Engelhardt]

Charles,

It's time to take this to email.

Better still, stop wasting your time. LTSpice's quality speaks for itself.

You're right. OK. Done. Sorry. Thanks.

--Mike