Re: Pspice compatibility: Bus representation in subcircuit calls

On 02 Dec 2003 18:22:58 GMT, "Mike Engelhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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