🚀 go-pugleaf

R H Braddam <rbraddam@aic-fl.com> wrote:
[snip snip]

: I've used AutoCad and MicroStation PC, and with both of them I found that
: they only added things to the drawings that I selected and placed. They put
: lines between points A and B that I selected, and did not inject anything
: into the drawings themselves. Any errors in the drawings were my doing, and
: not that of the program. I have some computer and electronics training and
: experience, but that has nothing to do with the CAD work I did. The point
: is, the programs didn't do any design work, they only provided a graphical
: representation of a design in progress. It wasn't even my design, I just
: made the drawings.

With simple drafting there's not much room to hurt yourself (not that it's
impossible, of course).  It's when you begin to push toward the limits of the
package that you're likely to encounter problems.  Using AutoCad as an
example, it when you start doing interference analysis with it that you might
begin to be vulnerable to its limitations.

: I've also played around with a circuit board layout program and a logic
: diagramming program. Again, in both cases, the programs only made
: connections I selected. They didn't design anything, they just made drawings
: of my design, faster and more accurately than I could have done by hand.

Again, at low frequencies the models used are not likely to lead you into
trouble.  But at some point stray parasitics begin to have significant
impact, and if you don't know how your package handles them you may be in
for a surprise.  You say that the programs didn't design anything, just
captured your drawings, so you may not have exposed yourself to the
full joy of EAD.  Consider, if you will, the utility and limitations of
a package such as Spice, and how you would go about deciding whether or not
you should trust its results in a particular case.  Knowing how it does
what it does can be essential to such a decision.

: And that is how millions of J. Random Users are using computers today.
: Computers are easier for them to use now because of the graphical user
: interface and the common feature access and selection mechanisms in
: standardised menu bars. If not knowing how the underlying computer hardware
: and software accomplishes their goals makes them losers, then they are
: losers. I suspect they think they are winners, though.

I suspect that 95% to 99% of the time the folks you call winners are, if
not winners, not yet losers.  Many of them may never lose in this game.
The problem I see is that without enough knowledge of the inner workings
of the tools they use they are always vulnerable to taking a loosing hit,
and some of those hits have serious consequences.  Most busted gamblers
were "winners" at some point.  They just ended up as losers because they
failed to understand that over the long term the house always wins.


: >It's very important indeed to know the workings and limitations of the
: >technology you use if you don't want to end up with crisped fingers.
: >


: It seems to me that the depth of knowledge required is related to the way
: you use the technology. Does anyone perform non-destructive testing of every
: possible failure point in a PC every time they turn it on? I suspect not.
: Does anyone know and understand the source code for every program they run
: on their computer? I suspect not. That is me taking "know the workings and
: limitations of the technology you use" to one extreme. I don't believe I am
: taking it to the other by promoting the casual use of computers by ordinary
: people who can be characterized as "computer illiterate". Some people may
: use computers for 10 years, and at the end of that time still be computer
: illiterate, but be quite expert at the use of a particular program. Others
: may investigate the workings of their machine, develop an interest in it,
: and advance the level of technology. One is a winner for him/herself, the
: other for us all.

The question boils down, I think, to one of risk exposure and assessment.
Anyone who attempts to use a tool he does not understand exposes himself to
some degree of risk.  If circumstances limit the possible negative outcomes 
to the trivial, then no harm can be done.  If, however, the tool user is
exposed to significant risk of major adverse consequences, and proceeds in
using a tool he only partially understands, that user is a fool.

When folly is easy to avoid, one is doubly the fool for not doing so.




-- 
-----------------------------
James R. Bunch         "A Byte is a terrible thing to waste ... 
jbunch@primenet.com     ... a MByte 1048576 times worse"

PGP Key available via finger
PGP Key fingerprint =  B5 31 10 77 BF B0 FD B2  10 54 CB E6 13 7C 26 58
------------------------------


-- 
-----------------------------
James R. Bunch         "A Byte is a terrible thing to waste ... 
jbunch@primenet.com     ... a MByte 1048576 times worse"

PGP Key available via finger
PGP Key fingerprint =  B5 31 10 77 BF B0 FD B2  10 54 CB E6 13 7C 26 58
------------------------------