Not that it matters much, but I would really prefer that once I have made a connection, the schematic editor would respect that connection.
But I can see that people in the forum here are very sensitive to critizism of KiCad, or even saying that it doesn’t have a feature it should have…
Anyone is welcome to criticize KiCad, but in this case it has been made clear that this is a difference in opinion, not a bug, and the KiCad project will not be changing this behavior.
Yes, it became overly clear in the discussion that there were strongly differing opinions, to the degree that it resembled some of the more heated religious discussions that can happen.
When a discussion goes into that mode, it is a good indicator that nothing reasonable is going to be learned from it, even if the potential could have been there initially.
“It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.” - variously attributed
I think this complaint - initially mine, but shared by others - is the beginning, not the
end, of this conversation. As KiCAD grows in popularity, I suggest that you’re going
to hear increasing calls from more sophisticated designers for a tool that doesn’t
regard connections as mere spatial coincidences to which one can attribute meaning
when it’s convenient to do so. Sooner or later, the idea of connections will be taken
seriously and reworked, and it’s reasonable to think that it’s better to do it sooner
rather than later.
As I’ve said earlier, it’s a matter of your opinion that you think that sophisticated designers require that programs work the way you are personally used to. What makes you think that you are the first “sophisticated” designer to use KiCad, and that therefore any difference you find from the programs you used before comes down to KiCad not being as “sophisticated” as you are?
This isn’t about me, so that approach isn’t going to work.
Listen to the other designers here who agree, based on their experience with mature,
sophisticated, and (incidentally) expensive tools, that EDA should take connections
seriously and completely.
So don’t waste your time trying to distract people by attempting to discredit me.
Instead address the substance of the argument, which is “connections that connect
rather than pretend to connect”.
I’ve already addressed the subject above; it’s been rather beat to death. At this point you are simply choosing to ignore the points I and others have made about KiCad’s design in this regard.
I agree with Via that not handling connections as connections but as graphics is somewhat problematic and I would prefer having some way, whether it be only perceived or actually reflecting the architectural implementation, of preventing accidental de- and re-connecting implicitly something while modifying a design. But I also agree strongly with Jon that the tone in this discussion haven’t been constructive, whether Via feels that way or not. I honestly have felt some arrogance here.
I certainly have my disagreements with many design decisions in KiCad implementation or behavior and have certainly annoyed the developers more than once. Yet this isn’t a good way forward. I’ll close this thread for now. The facts and opinions have already been expressed anyway. The subject matter itself is open for discussion in the future, of course.