I used to use a separate Git client but it feels really clunky after using VSCode / Git Graph. I think this stuff really needs to be built in to your IDE to get the most use out of it.
(Not that I think VSCode/Git Graph are the pinnacle of Git GUIs. VSCode's git support is kind of janky and Git Graph is unfortunately abandoned and not fully open source.)
This is fine precisely because it is a blog post. If it was a scientific paper... sure maybe they shouldn't say that. But the meaning is abundantly clear from the context. There is no ambiguity.
It's been a while since I've made a PCB so I can't remember what Horizon / Designspark PCB do, but this is a solved problem.
When do you push the net and when do you merge the net? Does dragging a net label connected to a net to intentionally attach it to a second net to connect the two not work due to pushing?
You merge nets when the user explicitly connects them (i.e. they are drawing a net and they click on another net).
I like how Simulink does this best - they fade wires when they cross without connecting - looks nice and makes connections obvious.
I agree. The syntax for useless error handling is indeed more verbose than Rust (a whole if block Vs a single ?) but the difference when you actually do proper error handling and add a useful context message is much smaller.
You could argue that's a good thing because it encourages writing proper error handling code.
I've seen plenty of Rust code with only? which leads to really bad error messages. I've seen Rust errors in complex programs that are literally just Could not open file or directory - no context, no filename. Go definitely has better error messages on average.
That said I still prefer Rust's error handling, and writing Rust in general.
I mean in schematics. You can absolutely short two lines together.
Ha ok well that's crazy too. But obviously there's a sane way to do it where wires do stay connected but nets don't automatically merge just by moving components.
I meant in the schematic. You can't get shorts there.
The one thing that I don’t like about KiCAD is that some shortcuts don’t have an alternative right click or toolbar menu item, which makes them undiscoverable unless you browse shortcuts.
Yes this is exactly the sort of thing I mean. Unfortunately the developers are unwilling to accept that these UX issues are really issues.
Though I can’t tell if they have reusable footprints and are able to simply reference them to a schematic symbol which is one of the nice things in KiCAD over altium
Wow, I've never used Altium but surely you don't need to remake the SOIC8 footprint (or whatever) for every SOIC8 component? Even Designspark PCB doesn't make you do that. Or did you mean something else?
I haven't used it for a very long time but IIRC if you drag a component in the schematic view, by default it leaves all the wires behind!
I also recall they have a super confusing file format (a .pretty directory or something? Wtf is that?). I note that LibrePCB claims one of its features is a sane file format, presumably in response to that.
Yeah definitely could be. I also think when AI gets things wrong it gets it so obviously wrong you have to delete it and do it yourself (and not worry about offending someone). It rarely seems to make the same kinds of trivial mistakes humans do (like copy/paste errors for example). It either does a pretty decent job that's easy to fix up, or it totally fails and you do it yourself.
I'm definitely going to try this for my next PCB project. I've tried basically all of the other free options (Designspark PCB, Eagle, Kicad, Geda, Horizon) and Horizon is the only one really worth using IMO (Designspark PCB is also decent).
Eagle and Geda are trash. Don't waste your time.
Kicad should be great, but they've made a number of insane UX decisions that make it really unusable in practice. Horizon is actually based on the pretty good Kicad engine but it fixes most of the UX mess.
I agree, but also I do find that AI's broken code is generally waaay less annoying to pick apart than my colleagues' code. I'm not sure exactly why. Probably partly because it's better at commenting code and naming variables so it's easier to follow?
I think also partly it's because reviewing other people's code is usually done during code review, where you can't just directly edit the code to fix it - you have to start a conversation convincing them to do it differently. That's quite annoying and doesn't happen with AI generated code.
Also what does it mean exactly? You didn't use copilot to write the game? I don't care about that. Too poorly defined. IMO it's better to explicitly state "this game does not contain AI generated content" or whatever.
Ugh I wish my CEO would try and apply AI to something. They're super paranoid about IP security (despite the fact that our IP would be fairly useless to anyone else) so we aren't allowed to use any third party AI tools and they won't provide a local AI server. So stupid.
I used to use a separate Git client but it feels really clunky after using VSCode / Git Graph. I think this stuff really needs to be built in to your IDE to get the most use out of it.
(Not that I think VSCode/Git Graph are the pinnacle of Git GUIs. VSCode's git support is kind of janky and Git Graph is unfortunately abandoned and not fully open source.)