Talk:Comparison of EDA software/Archive 1

Archive 1

FLOSS

Is there any FLOSS logic synthesizer? --Abdull (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Alliance software goes through a series of steps from VHDL source to VLSI poly/metal layout. I'm pretty sure that one of the steps in the middle is the logic synthesizer step. If you find any other FLOSS logic synthesizers, please make sure they are also listed in the comparison of Free EDA software article. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

PROTEUS 7

Why no Proteus 7. It could be the best EDA so far because of its integration with compilers. Othmanskn (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Microcap

I think Spectrum Soft's Microcap deserves to be listed here. I find it very nice and complete (much more than other professional CADs like OrCAD). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.150.60.138 (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

merge

this article and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Free_EDA_software should merge in one--Efa2 (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

They could, but you should still maintain 2 separate data tables or add a new column for price. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

+1 for merge; I am not familiar enough with these features myself to do it though :-( --MarmotteiNoZ 04:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I came here looking for Free Software / Open Source EDA tools rather than proprietary ones and found this page useful except for the seeming spam from the one proprietary program listed. I'd prefer to see it continue. -- Bruce Perens (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

 the articles have been merged] in december 2010. ---<(kaimartin)>--- (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Incoming

In resolving an edit dispute over at ODB++, a WP:3O admin suggested we move some info there over here. It would mean adding some rows to one or more of the tables, and adding a note about ODB++ to each row. So my question (and I do have one) is can a wikitable expert here undertake this? Or is there a WYSIWYG table editor that you can point me to? Also, has anyone toyed with the idea of merging table 1 & 2 into table 3? Watching for your reply. Thanks!Woz2 (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Serious extension needed

Current version of the article (September 2011) is highly partial: 'Proprietary Software' section lists only software doing analog design, simulation and PCB - what about digital design, simulation, synthesis, layout, etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarekk (talk • contribs) 17:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I tagged it. Please continue to add.Woz2 (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

inactive development of some EDA

We may add a current development state in the table. QSCad seems to be stopped. It is only a try. See http://www.qs.co.nz/Tcl/QSCad/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.250.203.171 (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

External links

DeepChip link appears to be ad site without any redeeming qualities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.123.82 (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Please add isolation milling

Can someone in the know please the add feature "isolation milling" to the table of features? It would be nice to know what software supports this. I know eagle and target 3001! do, but I don't know what else does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.65.244 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Why McCAD tools not part of your tools.??

I see there is no inclusion of the McCAD Series of tools. They very early adopters of Mac OS and now offer for winodws as well. They have been around since 1984 and their tool offerings are very affordable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.33.179 (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

POSIX platform option

Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe it is worded incorrectly but Agilent ADS for one runs on POSIX systems such as Sun or Linux — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.182.169 (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Tables clean-up

The two separate tables have not reason to eb sepeartaed; It looks to me than the first one could just be deleted, with the scond one amended to include the few extra bits of info contained in the first one.--MarmotteiNoZ 04:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree the tables need improving. In certain ways the first table is actually better of the two, since the architecture column is more flexible, allowing multiple platforms to be listed. The second table assumes things are either Windows or not Windows, which is a vast oversimplification. Platforms these days would include Windows, Unix, Linux (X11, Gnome, KDE), MacOS and Java. There may well be others, but it shows that the table should be ble to support this. Would anyone have any objections to reworking of the tables? --AJ Mas (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Reorganize?

Right now this article contains three lists:

1 Free and Open Source Software (FOSS)

2 Proprietary software

3 Comparison of EDA packages

It seems to me that 1 and 2 can be folded into 3, making one unified list. Comments? -Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I thought about being WP:BOLD and attempting it myself, but the task is a bit daunting. Woz2 (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

First part of the unification done, I'll try to find time to merge the FOSS table soon. Geometryofshadows (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Reorganise? Missing great tracts

The first list is FOSS/HDL software, the second proprietry CAD software. No FOSS/CAD, no prop-3d modelling, no prop-HDL software. Where's the spice simulators? Where are the FEA tools? Where are the pipe/electrical/instrumentation tools? Thoglette (talk) 03:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I think the separation into categories has, over time, discouraged the addition of legitimate EEDA software such as mentioned above. Guy Macon (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It would also help to include the cloud based tools like circuits.io, now 123D Circuits and Circuitlab. One of the metrics tracked should also be whether the tool can pull components from Ocotopart / CircuitHub.NGMWiki (talk) 9 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.215.55 (talk)

some cloud based tools added Geometryofshadows (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to add an edit notice

This comparison page often attracts good faith but non-notable entries. It would save everyone's time if we were to guard against this by adding an "edit notice" mechanism. If you are not familiar with this mechanism, you can see how it looks by attempting to edit, say, the Getting Things Done article. I proposed the idea here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Editnotices/Page/Comparison_of_EDA_software

It requires consensus and an admin to implement it. The admin in question (@Technical 13) is asking if there is a consensus here to do it. Please add your comments below. Thanks! SageGreenRider (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Couple minor points. The excessively BITEy wording in the request is what would need consensus, I'd be more than happy to make changes or whatnot if the requested text wasn't so IF YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THIS MESSAGE, ... Second, I'm not an administrator, I'm simply a measly little template editor. I hope this clarifies my objection. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 19:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• I understand, @Technical 13. I added a second attempt to the request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SageGreenRider (talk • contribs) 19:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Upverter Removed

Upverter was removed from this and other Wikipedia pages, including List of EDA companies. Is there a reason for this? Given that Upverter is an orphaned page I don't see why it should have been removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachaysan (talk • contribs) 31 aug 2015 21:19‎ (UTC)

In March 2015, I removed Upverter and four others that were non-notable at the time, per WP:WRITEITFIRST. However, a few days ago, Upverter was accepted as an article and so it is now considered notable and can be added back. To save typing you can copy-paste the text from this diff or this one SageGreenRider (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

pcb-rnd

Please consider listing pcb-rnd (http://repo.hu/projects/pcb-rnd).

It's a GPL'd PCB layout editor.

It's an independet effort, started from a fork of gEDA/PCB in 2013. It diverged a lot from gEDA/PCB in the past years, targeting and covering fields that gEDA/PCB can't or don't want to. pcb-rnd is present in Debian (and Ubuntu). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.56.146 (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comparing EDA software by schematics to PCB layout connection mechanism!

The list is completely meaningless if it does not compare the most elementary design function: the ability to create/edit schematics and the PCB layout and components affected accordingly. Also, more advanced would be the ability to do modifications in the PCB layout and these reflected in the schematics.

An example of the former: in EAGLE, you can add components and create nets in the schematics and the changes are immediately reflected in the PCB layout. The latter example is: you can do some changes in the EAGLE layout editor and these will be reflected in the schematics, such as deleting whole components, changing component size/type (such as switchhing a resistor from 0805 to 0402), changing component values and names.

NONE of the above is available in KiCAD, in KiCAD, you are supposed to draw the schematics correctly on the first try, then "annotate", then COMPILE a netlist, then run CvPcb to associate components with 'pads', then read the netlist into Pcbnew and start the layout process. If you had done a teeny tiny little mistake or want a small design change, you are very much doomed to start the process from the beginning. Renaming nets, components? You can forget that.

Some of the mentioned editing features are EXTREMELY vital to a design process. Utter inability of KiCAD to associate the correct pads to components which even have the type of package DEFINED in their name (such as suffix P indicating P-DIP package and D indicating SOIC) very much slows the design process.

My point is: comparing EDA tools without taking this into account is meaningless.

Also, the SPICE simulation needs to be sorted into that one which simulates only the pure, 100% theoretical and ideal netlist from the schematics and that one which does simulation with REAL BOARD LAYOUT. Those two are also extremely different classes.

In other words: Eagle 3.2 for MS-DOS beats KiCAD 4 any day in the schematics and board layout development speed, if you have the necessary components in the library.

Other important editing features:
a)"duplicate components"

b0) any ability to replicate design, most desirably just by copy&paste in schematics editor, with a duplicate of the layout created in the layout editor
b1) design replication allowed only for whole sheets

c0) a good set of schematics and layout editing "hand" tools (such as in Eagle or LTSpice), where the manipulation, reorganizing is rather easy and fast

c1) Editing has more pronounced quirks, such as automatic wire placement library from the times of Windows 3.1, which places broken lines and wire loops needlessly in the schematics

c2) extremely limited ability to edit and manipulate schematics and layout, such as KiCAD, where even dragging connected components causes strain

d0) total library support with 1 million components or more instantly available, with sophisticated search features, with virtually zero need to create your own component ever

d1) pretty good library support with frequent updates (at least 10x a year, at least 5000 components added per year)

d2) some library support, but links are frequently broken, maintainers don't have a plan or consistency, libraries are not authomatically loaded, or you need to make library list cleanups and re-inserting links to libraries (KiCAD 2014-April 2017)

d3) very limited library, with mostly "make-your-own" attitude, or breadboard systems (Fritzing?)

e0) design portability to other computers or platforms is easy and total, you copy the design folder and you can limitlessly edit it on another computer, even different platform (such as Linux/Windows), where all the project data is included in the project folder and nothing will be missing when copied to another computer

e1) portability is good, the project will have a 100% editability if you copy one or two directories or do an automatic web update, portability may be limited by licensing (such as unable to edit due to a different license on another computer)

e2) limited portability, with frequent broken links, hardlinked project files, project files placed in random locations on the computer and not in the project folder. (Still bugfixing in KiCAD as of April 2017, status before that was abysmal, first thing you had to do was to bring special user libraries separately, correct library links from some windows directory to the one on linux)

e3) portability is so severely restricted to the point of unusable or forbidden

f0) user license portability, you can use the software anytime and on any computer you wish

f1) if you move the dongle, you can use the software on any number of computers you desire

f2) you need to relicense or use internet to confirm transfer of software or the software detects hardware changes and limits you (Cadsoft Eagle keys used to be unportable)

f3a) you need an internet connection at least once a while (Autodesk Eagle has a 14-day "heartbeat" after which it will need an internet connection to verify license validity. f3b) you can't use the software if you haven't paid your monthly/yearly ransom, and forget about switching computers, or can't even run the software without a connected online account

p) printing (on paper)

see next point...

s) on-screen rendering

small-print rendering (garbled small text, or just no display of small text)

DLL, Kernel, hardware and OS dependencies for optimal function

Such as Eagle in GDI working lovely on Nvidia cards (5800) and on ATi it was as if you had no GPU. KiCAD has constantly changing hardware acceleration support that is very inconsistent across the platforms.

and so on and so forth.

I hope this gives someone an insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.22.18 (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed comparison table from schematic capture article

The following table was removed from the schematic editor article as it is partially redundant with the larger table here. However, some of the info may be merged into the table or into the corresponding articles, that's why I am copying the table here for comparison: --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Name	URL	License	Environment	Reads	Writes	CAM	Limits
AutoTRAX DEX	http://www.kov.com/	Commercial	Windows	AutoTRAX XML	AutoTRAX XML	Gerber, Excellon	unlimited layers, no PCB size limit.
BSch3V	http://www.suigyodo.com/online/e/	BSD 2-Clause	Windows
DesignSparkPCB	http://www.designspark.com/	Freeware	Windows
EAGLE	http://www.cadsoft.de/	Professional, Standard, Hobbyist, Light	Linux, Mac, Windows	EAGLE, ACCEL (P-CAD, Altium, Protel), ULTIBOARD, Netlists, BMP	EAGLE (XML), Netlists, Images, PDF, Custom (via ULPs)	Gerber, Excellon, Sieb & Meyer, HPGL, PostScript, Custom	999 sheets, 255 layers, 16 layers for auto-router, 4 x 4 m (150 x 150 inches); freeware: 1 sheet; 2 layers, 100 x 80 mm (3.9 x 3.2 inches)
esCAD sch	http://sch.escad.jp/	Freeware	Windows XP/7/8.1	.EscSch, "package file" of Altera and Xilinx	.EscSch, Netlists, Images, PDF		max A0 sheet
FreePCB	http://www.freepcb.com/	GNU	Windows	PADS-PCB Netlists	PADS-PCB Netlists	Gerber	16 layers, 60 x 60 inches
Fritzing	http://fritzing.org/	GNU GPL v3	Linux, Mac, Windows		SVG	Gerber
gEDA	http://www.gpleda.org/	GPL	Linux			Gerber
KiCad	http://www.kicad-pcb.org	GPL	Linux, Windows, MAC
Osmond PCB	http://www.osmondpcb.com/	Freeware Trial	Mac	Gerber	Lue, DXF, PDF	DXF, PostScript	(trial limited to 700 pins)
PCBWeb	http://www.pcbweb.com/	Freeware	Windows				No option for DXF Export
Pulsonix	http://www.pulsonix.com	Commercial, Lite	Windows	Altium, CADSTAR, Eagle, P-CAD, PADS, ORCAD, Gerber, SXF, BMP, WMF, EDIF and more	Custom, DXF, IDF, Images, Netlists, STEP, SPICE	3D, Excellon, Gerber, LPKF, ODB++, STEP	Unlimited Layers, Unlimited Pin Limit.
TARGET 3001!	http://www.ibfriedrich.com/	Freeware, commercial, students, educational institutes	Windows	Eagle, Protel	Eagle	Gerber, Excellon, Sieb & Meyer, HPGL, DXF, STEP, PovRay	Freeware: 250 Pins, 2 layers, schematic size and/or board size 2m x 2m, 100 schematic pages
TinyCAD	https://sourceforge.net/projects/tinycad/	Freeware	Windows
ZenitPCB Layout	http://www.zenitpcb.com/eng/PCB.html	Freeware	Windows	Gerber	DXF, IDF, EAGLE	DXF, IDF	800 pins

reference list of software titles

Quite Universal Circuit Simulator (Qucs). Why two tables?

Any reason why Qucs is not included in the table "Comparison of EDA packages"?

https://sourceforge.net/projects/qucs/

Chris.Bristol (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

My guess it that just nobody added it. It has an article, so it looks to qualify. The Banner talk 20:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Where are there two tables? From the way they are headed, free software should be in both, but some of the applications in the "Free" table are also in the main table, some aren't. Since the difference is only one fact (Free), a column could be added then the data from the 2nd table could be added and the 2nd table deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris.Bristol (talk • contribs) 12:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Horizon-EDA update request

Hello everyone I apologize for writing in this topic, I do not edit the article myself - this is because I am not an experienced wiki user. My request is to add a reference to the article about the great new EDA program "Horizon-EDA". Thank you in advance. https://github.com/horizon-eda/horizon/ https://horizon-eda.org/ https://horizon-eda.readthedocs.io/en/latest/feature-overview.html --- User:78.36.53.186 on July 22, 2020‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.36.53.186 (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

In general, because of notability requirements, before adding "something" to a list or table, there must be a wikipedia article about that "something". In this case, someone needs to create an article for "Horizon-EDA", but a reminder that a new article requires 3rd-party references to prove the notability of it too. This means links from sources other than horizon-eda project webpages. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Mentor Graphics

Mentor Graphics not even mentioned in the listing??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.216.171.130 (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was a ridiculous deficiency of the (very poor) article which it was. I have fixed that now. Goitseu (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Allegro not even listed. Must be listed separately.

Allegro not even listed. It must be listed separately. It is not same as OrCAD. MKRD info (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Does the subject has it own article? As this is a list of notable programs/packages, that notability is most easy to prove with an own article. The Banner talk 08:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Allegro is part of Cadence Design Systems, which I have finally added to the article (strange that it was missing so far indeed!). In my opinion Allegro would deserve a separate mention given its importance in the field. Please go ahead and add it. I may try to do so as well if I have time. Goitseu (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Splitting article into two: PCB and IC design

This page puts EDA for integrated circuits (ICs) design and EDA for PCB design in one common giant pot. However, the term EDA is primarily referred to IC design. This is correctly reflected also in the Electronic design automation Wikipedia page which specifies this article in particular describes EDA specifically with respect to integrated circuits (ICs).

Given the simplicity of PCB design compared to chip design, there are clearly many more PCB tools than IC tools, but that shouldn't be a reason to consider them on the same level.

Moreover, I think that engineers looking for IC design tools are rarely interested in PCB tools and vice-versa. I propose therefore to split the article into two articles:

1. Comparison of EDA software for PCB design
2. Comparison of EDA software for IC design

Goitseu (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

"However, the term EDA is primarily referred to IC design."

Any source on this specific claim, other than a wikipedia article? As far as I see, pretty much every major PCB-related EDA suite is called EDA too. I can't see any evidence that the term "EDA" is biased to IC design in the actual industry, if we consider both IC and PCB industry.

"Given the simplicity of PCB design compared to chip design" - any source on this claim? PCB design is surely more accessible on every level (prototyping, building, testing), but lower entry cost doesn't automatically mean professional PCB design is any easier than IC design. The reason for more software targeting the PCB workflow may not depend on "simplicity of PCB design", but simply on user demand.

I agree with separating IC and PCB design tools. I disagree with any bias that suggests one is over the other. I think your reasoning needs more thoughts on the schematics editing side: there are editors (e.g. xschem) that are used both for IC and PCB workflows. So it is easy to split the layout part but much harder to split the schematics part in an unbiased way. And then what do you do with packages that bundles schematics editor and (either IC or PCB) layout tool but allow the netlist to be exported from the schematics editor, so it really supports both IC and PCB workflows when a different layout editor is used?

I also very much dislike your actual edit on the tables, because it removes a lot of important details on free PCB tools (e.g. file format support). I think the whole point of this article is to provide details for such comparison. 80.99.88.182 (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

You suggest to revert the edits? The Banner talk 09:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I have two suggestions:

1. on an abstract, non-edit level: let's not build artificial bias. Aat the moment I sense two such biases with the new edits and comments: one is that EDA is more about IC design than PCB design; the other is that the tables for free software has much less details than the table for proprietary software, making free software section only a listing, not a real comparison.

2. In practice, I suggest either a partial revert (to restore details lost in the free software separation step), or further improvement. Further improvement would be to keep free software in its separate table but introduce the same columns as the proprietary software table has. Data for the new columns could be copied from a previous version of the article where some of the free software had a row in the "main" table with file format details. 80.99.88.182 (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This is where a lot of details got lost:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_EDA_software&type=revision&diff=1111086068&oldid=1111085917

This affects fritzing, kicad, geda and pcb-rnd. 80.99.88.182 (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Seeing the prior discussions I had with user:Goitseu about his spamming (and vandalism), I would support a radical revert. The Banner talk 13:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to the lost information about fritzing, kicad, geda and pcb-rnd: I put it back now. Those tools appeared in multiple tables and some information got lost by the merging operation. Goitseu (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

About PCB vs. IC tools I have been careful indeed not to introduce any bias in the text (despite I have been vocal in this Talk page). Do you feel there is any bias in the current text? What do you think could be improved? Thanks, Goitseu (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the current article text is not explicitly biased in IC vs. PCB. It was the discussion here, on the talk page that suggested such bias could be introduced.

There's an implicit bias, or rather a corner case that I think may be confusing, which is from how the tables are split. I still support the idea of splitting IC and PCB design on the layout side, because I fully agree that laying out an IC is a very different process than laying out a PCB. However, schematics editing is a different story.

The problem that affects the table splitup and grouping of software in general, especially for those workflows that work with a graphical schematic to feed an IC/PCB layout tool. It is because of two things:

1. There are schematics editors that are used for both IC and PCB layout. For example xcshem which is originally was intended for IC (VLSI) but in the recent years got upgraded for also supporting PCB workflows. Another example is gschem from the gEDA package which is most often used for PCB layout but is capable of doing ICs (there are documented cases, e.g. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9002123/similar#similar )

2. Proprietary software is very often bundled in the sense that you buy a package that offers a schematics editor and a layout editor and you use them together. Technically it may be possible to mix the sch and layout editors of different packages e.g. through a netlist exchange, but in practice it's more common to say package X is for IC and package Y is for PCB and both X and Y cover the complete flow. However, it's different with some free software! There's a lot more mixing there because there are more standalone efforts for covering only a part of the process and then explicitly leaving the rest to other projects. A very common split is sch vs. layout.

For example: xcircuit, oregano, xschem and tinycad are schematics-only, there's no layout tool bundled with them. This makes them (in theory or in practice) able to work for both ICs and PCBs, depending on how you choose the layout tool for the next step.

And here comes the major complication: the article doesn't handle bundling well. This is not new, this is not the edits of this month. But the split of IC vs. PCB exposes this problem more. A specific example is gEDA: gEDA is not an EDA suite in the sense as KiCAD or Eagle. gEDA is more like a collection of independent projects, a bit like a linux distribution. These projects are developed by different people without much coordination. gEDA is only an umbrella project that recognizes they are GPL'd EDA projects and provides them resources (mailing list, web server, etc). You can't download gEDA, there's no gEDA release, there's no gEDA source tarball. You can download gschem (popular sch editor "in gEDA"), Lepton EDA (another sch editor "in gEDA") or PCB (a pcb layout tool "in gEDA"). The article lists this whole thing simply as "gEDA", and with the IC vs. PCB split it needs to decide in which bucket it puts it into. It decides to put it in the PCB section, which masks the fact that parts of gEDA is usable (and is being used) for IC layout!

Sorry about the long background writeup... My actual suggestions are:

1. At least on the free software side, I suggest to do a full split of bundled software for sch and layout. So list gEDA twice: once in the sch section (maybe as "gschem (gEDA)"), as a general purpose sch editor that's both for IC and PCB workflows and once in the PCB section because of the software called "PCB" gEDA includes.

2. Do the IC vs. PCB split the same way for proprietary software. For example does Eagle support IC design? I am not an user of Eagle, but my impression is that it's as PCB-geared as KiCAD is. I have the same impression on diptrace, designspark PCB, and easyeda.

3. Also the same sch vs. layout splitup on proprietary side. 80.99.88.182 (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree, 80.99.88.182.

I have not made yet the splitup on the proprietary side simply because I used very few of the tools in that list and because the list is very long. However, my impression is that almost all of the tools listed there are limited to PCB design (by-the-way: one should change the column entitled "PCB editing?" into "IC editing?" to spot that). My experience is that in the IC domain Cadence, Synopsys and Mentor cover alone almost the full proprietary EDA market. A splitup would make a lot of sense as you said.

On the free software side, removing the request of "having an own article" will allow to do what you correctly proposed, for example listing gEDA twice in a more detailed way, like "gschem (gEDA)" or "Lepton", etc. Goitseu (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Why Tina is not listed?

We do not see TINA EDA in the list why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.21.163.209 (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Does it have an article? If not, it fails notability and is disallowed in the list. The Banner talk 16:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Well there is an article on that one: TINA (program). The Microwind software is also missing. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Same answer. You can add TINA yourself. The Banner talk 18:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I added that. Could please anyone using TINA check if the entry is exact? Thanks Goitseu (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

No, you failed to properly link it. The Banner talk 10:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to this? Goitseu (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I fixed that inaccuracy. The Banner talk 13:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Xyce removal vs. FIRRTL removal

While awaiting that the discussion about leaving or removing the requirement that "any tool mentioned in the list shall have its own article" is settled (see above), I would like to discuss the following:

FIRRTL, which is one of the core tools used inside the Chisel framework (see for example the title "Chisel/FIRRTL Hardware Compiler Framework" of the chisel page) has been deleted here and then here again. user:The_Banner, despite being pointed to it, argues here that FIRRTL is not a part of the Chisel workflow, which is in constrast with what I just reported. Do you find banning FIRRTL from the page appropriate? Wouldn't be sufficient to link to the Chisel article?

I am asking because, as a comparison, Xyce, which does not have an own article either is left in the page. I think that Xyce is a beautiful tool, and I would definitely leave it in the list (just as much as FIRRTL and many of the other tools removed by The Banner), but I wonder if leaving Xyce in the page is consistent with the current policy. Or is Xyce in here just because it is developed by the Sandia National Laboratories? Thanks in advance for any comment, Goitseu (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Chisel (programming language) states Circuits described in Chisel can be converted to a description in Verilog for synthesis and simulation using a program named FIRRTL., suggesting it is a separate program. And that are your own words, Goitseu. The Banner talk 14:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

But by now I am getting sick that you turn everything in a personal attack, Goitseu. Try to keep this discussion clean The Banner talk 14:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

To be listed on this page, there should be an article about the tool itself being listed. MrOllie (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to remove Xyce as it has no own article. It is funny that Goitseu commented on this, as he added this knowing it could be shot down. The Banner talk 00:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Removing the intimidating edit notice?

I scanned a good amount of the history of this article and discovered that it has been edited by many editors who added a large amount of valuable entries. However, those have been serially reverted, often without any discussion.

The deleted entries include -just to name a few- the following software which I think would have been very well suited to appear in this comparison page:

1. Alliance (GPL),
2. GHDL (GPL), or
3. KLayout (GPL)

The source code of this article shows an intimidating edit notice which states:

IF YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THIS MESSAGE, YOUR EDIT WILL BE ROLLED BACK WITHOUT WARNING.

This article is NOT an advertising section. THIS IS NOT A PLACE TO LINK TO YOUR COMPANY WEB SITE. If you want to consider adding an external link please discuss it within the article's discussion page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_EDA_software. Please review the external link guideline at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL before posting in the discussion.

As a general rule only EDA tools that are sufficiently notable to have an article about them elsewhere on Wikipedia should be placed here.

Fortunately edit notices like this have been criticized as intimidating and have been removed.

User:The_Banner however thinks that any software which doesn't have its own Wikipedia article is equivalent to spam.

For a long time this article has been in a poor shape lacking even an introduction, and I suspect that this is tightly related with the intimidating edit notice mentioned above and the exaggerated (if not aggressive) reverting policy adopted by some editors.

I propose therefore:

1. To remove said edit notice (as I tried already), and
2. To no longer delete software tools only because they don't have their own Wikipedia page
3. To consider notable (and hence worth being listed) any EDA tool with at least one external reference and which is actively used or which is actively developed. Case-by-case discussion can of course always happen in the talk page.
4. To insert older or discontinued EDA tools in a dedicated section entitled for example discontinued tools

Goitseu (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

May I refer to WP:WTAF? In plain English: Write The Article First. There is no need to add links to packages that are in itself not notable. Adding such a linkfarm is unfortunately, a type of spamming. That is why there is the edit notice, both in and outside the article. But I am interested if a discussion here leads to a new consensus and removal of the edit notice. Setting up a RfC (official request for comments) might be a good idea. The Banner talk 23:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the effort of keeping spam out. But I think the gate keeping factor is unreasonably high at the moment. This results in a lot of software missing from this article that actually exist and used in the industry.

Depending on what the goal is, requiring WP:WTAF may not be the most efficient way for the selection. Below is my reasoning and a suggestion that could partially solve the problem.

Do non-EDA-expert wikipedia editors go and do research on the software missing from the list (or deleted from the list) to write the article? If not, how would such articles happen? As far as I understand the author of the software can't write the article because of conflict-of-interest. In my opinion practice shows nobody really writes those articles. Not because the software is "not notable" but because those who have the knowledge on the software won't spend their time writing wikipedia articles and those who spend their time maintaining wikipedia articles probably don't know the software.

Currently the goal seems to be to list software not based on their true impact on the industry/users but based on whether someone decided to write an article and it went through the other gatekeeping mechanism (as a random EDA user, non-experienced wikipedia editor, writing a new article and not getting deleted is very difficult). In my opinion this makes the selection based not on actual importance/impact/notability of the software but on how it relates to wikipedia editing.

Result: the article lists software like CR-5000 and Microcap (both EOL'd) but doesn't list actively developed software like Lepton EDA, xschem, or big, established proprietary editors like PADS.

I totally understand that on the proprietary side it may be hard to tell apart spam from actually notable software that already has an established market and is not trying to use wikipedia for advertisement. I don't have any idea how to do that better.

But I have a suggestion for the free software side: major Linux distributions package software that they find notable. For any software to enter e.g. the official Debian or Fedora repository,there are real high requirements on quality. Distributions also tend to select software for packaging that are really in use and in active development. Those free software that fail on any of these measures typically can't get into major distros or fall out from them over time. So on the free software side, if at least 3 of the major Linux or BSD distributions feature the software in their official software repository, that suggests the software went though accurate inspection and gatekeeping and at least 3 other groups than the original authour also deemed the software important enough to spend many hours packaging it. I think such software should qualify for reamining in this article, even if there's no wikipedia article on the software yet. 80.99.88.182 (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

In fact, WP:WTAF is not a selection criteria but an advice how to deal with the selection criteria. You want something in the list? Write the article! It gives all packages the same chances. The Banner talk 10:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

What I meant was not "selection policy", but what the policy induces to be the effective selection mechanism. Which is basically: demotivate one-time editors with domain-specific knowledge. "write the article" sounds good in theory, but the same gatekeeping is happening there. Been there, done that, got deleted, figured that it's not the content that really matters.

The effect of all this strict policy is what you see on this article: a lot of legitimate software missing from the list, constant deletion of new entries, which very rarely result in the original editor ending up writing and succesfully publishing an article for the given software.

I undertsand this policy kills legit spam. But at a cost of real high false positives. If it's WP:WTAF, do you ever try to actually write the article for the entry instead of simply removing it? Or at least offer active help for non-expert/newcomer editors on writing the article?

I see the current setup as unreasonable gatekeeping that drives potnetial editors with knowledge ont he field away from editing wikipedia. In return I don't see the experienced wikipedia editor/gatekeeper doing much work on filling in the missing spots. In my (irrelevant) opinion at the end this makes the article less useful and lower quality than it could be.

I am not sure you are unhappy about this situation, and I am not insisting on changing this.

I merely presented a point of view from this newcomer side, and a suggestion that would allow a less demotivatory (is that even a word?) still objective process for notability judgement. If you like it, take it, if you don't, keep on deleting entries for otherwise notable software. 80.99.88.182 (talk) 10:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I 100% agree with what you said. Thanks 80.99.88.182. Goitseu (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

user:The Banner, the world is not perfect, and Wikipedia isn't either. As 88.99.88.182 tried to explain nobody really writes those articles, and that's particular true for free software. Please give a look at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, WP:BOLD and Wikipedia:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia for why your suggestion should be improved. Thanks, Goitseu (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

No, but adding a lot of non-notable packages will not make Wikipedia any better. By writing the article, notability can be properly checked. Ow, and read WP:SPAM, WP:VER, WP:NOTABILITY and other pages related to notability concerns. The Banner talk 10:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that everybody agrees: non-notable packages don't belong here. However, in this section we are discussing what is notable and what is not notable. Can you expand your arguments by applying the WP rules that you just cited to some of the software you banned? I think this will greatly help everyone understanding your point of view. Thanks, Goitseu (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I have not banned any packages. Just removed them from the list as they do not have articles on their own, something that might be solved by writing the article. The Banner talk 11:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but you build all your reasoning on a single false assumption. You assume what you delete is all spam, and the reason the per software articles not happening is probably a feedback that makes you believe that even more.

I am in the EDA industry from tool programming side for like a decade already, as an EDA user for almost two decades. I've been following the history of this article, because of my obvious interest in the EDA field.

I am sorry to say, but vast majority of your deletion was not removing spam. You were removing legitimate, existing, notable software most of the time, without any actual research or reasoning beyond "no article".

From an ivory tower point of view, you may believe this is what makes wikipedia any better. From my user point of view, it's your policy and deletions that vandalize the page, not that probably less than 5% who actually add spam.

Since you show zero willingness to even think over your position and merely keep repeating the same thing without addressing any of the concerns on why writing a new article is not as easy as you pretend it to be, I am out of this discussion.

No offense meant, and I am not criticizing you, in person or otherwise, but the general attitude about this kind of gatekeeping. This is exactly the "expert wikipedia editor" attitude that leaves a huge gap between:

1. those who know things about the actual field the article is about but do not edit the article and

2. those who have no idea about the domain but do edit, blindly applying policies.

Then standing at the edge of this gap, shouting over "write the article" to people who potentially could, but are not willing to anymore. This is what reduces wikipedia to "good for looking at the external links only" on many of the fields like EDA.

So I am switching back to be a passive reader who refuses to register or edit on wikipedia because of the FUBAR policies. 80.99.88.182 (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

88.99.88.182, please don't leave! I just asked for help. Hopefully somebody will chime in. Goitseu (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

No, thanks. This article and the local gatekeeper is unfortunately just a typical example - most of wikipedia is like this. Content has zero value, what matters is who edits, and how the administration is done, relabelled as "policy".

It really isn't worth investing time or effort.

If you want to have a proper article about anything, or a comparison of actual EDA software, I recommend creating a page elsewhere. Invest the time in actual work instead of trying to fix the unfixable. 80.99.88.182 (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

An easy way to check whether a given free software is in at least 3 major distros: the repology.org database which is a meta-database of software packages working from the repositories of many Linux and BSD distributions.

Positive example: https://repology.org/projects/?search=xschem

The spr column says 5; this column means how many different repository families picked up and packaged the project. So in case of xschem, this means at least 5 different persons/groups looked at xschem and found it notable enough to spend considerable time in packaging for their specific repositry. This does not include "copied the package from another distro", e.g. Debian package getting into Ubuntu and Devuan still count as 1 on spr.

Negative example: https://repology.org/projects/?search=jspice

Only 1 spr. I would consider this software not notable enough.

Tricky example: https://repology.org/projects/?search=icarus shows very low spr.

This suggests icarus verilog is not notable. However, when searched as: https://repology.org/projects/?search=iverilog, spr is 25. So it's important to get the package name right. 80.99.88.182 (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I find this an excellent idea. Any free software which is in three or more distributions should automatically be considered notable. As you examples shows, however, this should be only a sufficient and not a necessary condition for notability.

Your arguments helped me understanding that proprietary tools and free software tools have intrinsically different metrics for being considered notable.

About proprietary tools I think we should define meaningful rules for them as well. Personally, I think that any tool which satisfies all of the following conditions should be considered notable:

1. a clear adoption by industry (even if it is a niche market since niche markets are very common here)
2. a website which is sufficiently talkative about what the tool can or cannot do such that it is possible to fill out most of the comparison criteria

Just to make an example: why is diakopto deserving any less attention than the other tool? This tool is obviously not spam (it is not fake, it is not obsolete, etc.).

The only risk I see is of congesting the table. Still, I think that splitting the tables in sub-cathegories (as discussed above) will keep the article tidy and clean. Goitseu (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Notability has an established definition on Wikipedia, which you can find at WP:N. There is not and should not be any distinction between proprietary and open source tools. 'Already has an article' is a very common (probably the most common) inclusion critera for software lists on Wikipedia - I see no good reason to deviate from it here. This list should be an index of topics for which we have reliably sourced content. It should not be allowed to become an indiscriminate list. MrOllie (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. "Has an article" is a perfectly reasonable requirement to appear on a list. It's a precedent on many pages, in essays like WP:WTAF, and interpretations of policies like WP:UNDUE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Woodroar (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

No article, no entry. Simple and easy rule. Fully agree with MrOllie above. Pavlor (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

A few comments:

• WP:WTAF is an essay which represents what an editor thinks rather than Wikipedia policy.
• WTAF can be balance against multiple other essays.
• Think about Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state
• A red link means that the article appears on Wikipedia:Requested articles indicating that there is a desire for the article to be written.
• If you do not believe that a piece of software is not sufficiently notable then why not revert it and follow WP:BRD with a note on the talk page about why you do not believe it shuld be on the list?
• There is no WP:DEADLINE, so improving this page and then creating a new page later on for the software is a perfectly acceptable way of doing things.
• Creating a new page is a different skillset than editing an existing page and you should not expect that everyone has that skillset.
• There are a lot of notable subjects that do not yet have a Wikipedia page. That does not reduce their level of notability. A Royal Commission in Australia is the highest form of inquiry on matters of public importance but List of Victorian royal commissions has a large amount of red links.
• The notice acts to discourage edits and new editors.
• It would have been better if this was a formal WP:RFC to get a wider input.

In summary, I suggest removing the message and using the BRD process for software that is not considered notable.Gusfriend (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Even when you remove it out of the text, there is still an edit notice listed when you start editing. Just ignoring that is a bit awkward. I agree with the RfC but I am not convinced that external links used in plain text or red links make an article better. As a compromise I suggest to make a list on the talk page for the requested packages. The Banner talk 12:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the external links don't belong in the text and should be removed. Rather than a list how about something like below. This would allow for easy discussion in a better way than a table would.

==Missing packages==

If you want something added to the table please create a new section below so that we can create consensus.

===Software one===

It is really cool.

===Software Two===

Also very cool. Gusfriend (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Cool ideas for the talk page, yes, but completely unsuitable for the article. The Banner talk 12:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that idea was for the Talk page. Gusfriend (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Below I have started an RfC given the multiple suggestions to do so and given the lack of a clear consensus. Please continue the discussion there. Thanks, Goitseu (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)