Talk:Comparison of EDA software

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comparison of EDA software article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Lead section[edit]

The lead section isn't at all compliant with WP:LEAD. What is EDA software? What does it do, or what is it for? Who uses it? Can we link to other articles? It seems to me that the lead is explaining how complex electronic designs are in order to (eventually) say that EDA software is involved in their design. But then it just...doesn't. An uncharitable reading could be that EDA software makes everything ridiculously complicated on purpose—and I'm guessing that's not the case. Woodroar (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to address you concerns here. Please let me know what you think, thanks, Goitseu (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to summarize what EDA software is into a single sentence? The first sentence should really be something like "This page is a comparison of EDA software, which [short description of what EDA software does]". Can it be distilled into that? Woodroar (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about the following?

This page is a comparison of electronic design automation (EDA) software which is used today to design the near totality of electronic devices. Modern electronic devices, in fact, are too complex to be designed without the help of a computer. Electronic devices may consist of.. Goitseu (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's it, or at least it's getting there. I'd suggest implementing that and then others can make any changes over time. Thank you! Woodroar (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done! Thank you, Goitseu (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: allowing programs without own article to be listed?[edit]

Should programs which don't have yet an own Wikipedia entry be allowed in this comparison list? Unfortunately no clear consensus could be found in the talk page yet. While the article passed from this to this the current policy has created not a few troubles as shown for example here, here and here demonstrating the negative impact that policies enforced by such an "edit notice" can have as already highlighted here and here. Goitseu (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Having their own article is a valid and established selection criterion. And seeing that Goitseu is again playing the personal card, I doubt that he has genuine intentions to improve the encyclopedia. The Banner talk 10:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. '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) 12:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. We aren't an advertising website. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Requiring a standalone article is perfectly reasonable. It's the inclusion criteria on many or most list articles across the project. Woodroar (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not how its done. scope_creep^Talk 07:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. I will repeat myself: No article, no entry. Simple and easy rule. Fully agree with MrOllie above. Pavlor (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes if and this is a big if, they are included in comparisons by WP:RSs. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. I agree with others that non-article entries should be excluded as a useful selection criterion. SWinxy (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the bias[edit]

I briefly scanned some of the talk about this article and the removal of bias seems a very hot topic, but does it really have to be? I know some tools muddy the waters by having multiple back-ends to do both pcb and ic design and some have intermediate links that can be used to subvert an ic / pcb design into a pcb / ic design but are these really that common? And would it be so difficult to review the capabilities separately? I would like to suggest that the design of pcb's and the design ic's are different in many ways and different enough to split the discussion between the two. If some EDA does both then it should have an entry under both. And entries under one banner should never make any comparison with anything to do with the other banner. If someone really needs to assert something like, one being more complex than the other, and they really can't help themselves but to make the comment, then, I would respectfully suggest, they might be young children who should not be editing a wiki article. Where an EDA does both, the other capability can simply be noted in the one capability and the software gets two mentions and discussion that is not tarnished with bias, but totally focused on the capability that means it is mentioned under one or the other banner. That would be the point really, would it not? If I am looking at comparison of PCB EDA tools then that is the focus wanted. If the tool also does ic design then a brief mention of the fact and then I can go and review that capability of the tool. I would also say, if a tool exists and fits under one or the other banners, then it rates a mention on this page. Deleting an entry for some of the reasons given is not justifiable unless commercial interest or prejudice were considered valid argument. One last comment, when this done, someone needs to sift through it and correcting the spellings and grammars. Maybe I could 'automatize' something to do it. Not having a go, it is just that with the statements that one thing is much harder than another from someone who clearly has no idea, these grammatical and spelling errors are one thing too many to deal with for me to remain entirely polite. PedantEngineer (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Proprietary vs Free software[edit]

i think this choice of making titles gives a bit of a bias as it leads to viewers like me think that proprietary software is not free. LTSpice is free though. I think a better classification is Open source vs Proprietary. so i am gonna do that LostCitrationHunter (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On second though, i realised i'd have to go through all of the softwares mentioned to see if they are opensource or not and if they are paid, i am just a uni student who started using LTSpice few days ago, i think ill start a bit and leave the rest to someone else LostCitrationHunter (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

I suggest to merge List of electrical engineering software into "Comparison of EDA software". In my opinion, the list is largely double with the comparison, especially when you cut out the non-notable packages. Beside that, I have severe doubts about the reliability of the two given sources. The Banner talk 17:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]