Live data from Hacker News

Diode – Build, program, and simulate hardware

withdiode.com

61–70 of 107 posts

Re: Diode – Build, program, and simulate hardware

#61

Not a fan. The standard schematic abstraction is great and actually helps us parse circuits. Don't add unnecessary complexity just because AIs are good at vibecoding threejs demos (edit: even if this particular demo seems to predate vibecoding and was likely used for training instead of being the product of inference).

Got to agree. This is kind of pointless. Breadboards exist to make it easier to build physical circuits. I would also argue there is paedagogical value in actually playing with a physical breadboard. Having to physically orient things in 3D space is a small price you pay for building a physical prototype. This is all the downsides with none of the upsides.

The upsides are the measurement tools built in.

Re: Diode – Build, program, and simulate hardware

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Schematics also help explain your circuit because the idioms of drawing them communicate intent. Which is one of the things the Shenzhen/Ladyada/Sparkfun/SeedStudio crowd don't get with their "schematic as data entry for layout" style. Some of them should know better. Breadboards make me wince a little especially in a professional setting but I've made my peace with dev boards that come with DIP-style pins for them.…

"… schematic as data entry for layout style…" Maybe you can explain. Are you saying in these cases often the physical PCB layout follows the geometry of the schematic?

I mean when they put parts down on the schematic and just attach net names to them. You know, the pull-up resistors in the corner with named nets on them, not shown attached to particular pins or buses. Usually with a dotted box drawn around them. Frequently horizontal.

Also usually totally implicit power routing. And no one that draws schematics that way has ever learned the value of drawing IC symbols to fit the circuit as opposed to the physical pinning of the device.

Re: Diode – Build, program, and simulate hardware

#63
post #11

I appreciated that smoke comes out of the battery if you short it :) Edit: I am ex EE. I will note that it's horrible using this view. It is marginally more horrible than using breadboards in reality. Schematics exist because reality tends to suck or have inconsistencies. For example TO-99 packages come in different pin orders, so 2N3904 has the opposite order to a BC547. Also breadboards tend not to have full length…

Ah this reminds me of my first big mistake with PCBs. I have recently started down the hardware track, and my first PCB has a number of BC547 and BC558 transistors on it.

Once I had a functioning prototype, the next step was to convert it into a schematic. After that, you have to convert the schematic into a PCB. Now we are at two layers of translation, and at this step I made a mistake: I wanted to use SMD components to save money, and I found that the BC8xx transistors are the SMD equivalent of the BC5xx ones, so I used the footprint of the BC8xx transistors in my PCB, with no errors from KiCad.

As it turns out, the BC8xx footprint is not compatible with a BC5xx schematic! The pinout is different: the base is pin 1 instead of pin 2, so the components in my PCB that use transistors (crucially, the voltage controlled amplifier) didn't work. Unlike a bug, that mistake cost me $200 and weeks of development time, but after 10+ years of writing software I'm still happy to be making things that people can touch.

Re: Diode – Build, program, and simulate hardware

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got to agree. This is kind of pointless. Breadboards exist to make it easier to build physical circuits. I would also argue there is paedagogical value in actually playing with a physical breadboard. Having to physically orient things in 3D space is a small price you pay for building a physical prototype. This is all the downsides with none of the upsides.

The upsides are the measurement tools built in.

You have those in all simulations.

Re: Diode – Build, program, and simulate hardware

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll grant you the vibecoding comment. That was uncalled for and unjustified. From an EE perspective I still see limited value in having a 3D breadboard. Having a standardized schematic language is really nice. Everybody knows how resistors, capacitors and transistors look like in a schematic, whereas they are all just little cuboids with varying number of pads in their smd packages. I recommend multisim blue for lea…

Is there a good free circuit simulator (that use a schematic as interface, I assume)? I somewhat agree with you in general though—if the web UX is a breadboard… maybe just get a breadboard? At the same time, while physical parts are generally cheap enough, power supplies, multimeters, an oscilloscope… that part of the hobby can add up. Sometimes too I am waiting a week or two for a part to arrive from Mouser, it is n…

There are tons of free sim tools. 'Spice' (Simulation Program with Integrated Circuit Emphasis) was a very early commercial sim. So many of the free ones use some variant of spice in their name. LTSpice, Qspice, etc.

Kicad is an excellent free schematic capture and simulation software.

Re: Diode – Build, program, and simulate hardware

#67
post #11

I appreciated that smoke comes out of the battery if you short it :) Edit: I am ex EE. I will note that it's horrible using this view. It is marginally more horrible than using breadboards in reality. Schematics exist because reality tends to suck or have inconsistencies. For example TO-99 packages come in different pin orders, so 2N3904 has the opposite order to a BC547. Also breadboards tend not to have full length…

Schematics also help explain your circuit because the idioms of drawing them communicate intent. Which is one of the things the Shenzhen/Ladyada/Sparkfun/SeedStudio crowd don't get with their "schematic as data entry for layout" style. Some of them should know better. Breadboards make me wince a little especially in a professional setting but I've made my peace with dev boards that come with DIP-style pins for them.…

> Schematics also help explain your circuit because the idioms of drawing them communicate intent.

I think this is a key point. One could imagine three layers:

(1) NETLIST: a list of text-only descriptions, like "R1 1 0 1k", or even a sentence description "connect a 1k resistor between node 1 and node 0"

(2) SCHEMATIC: a 2D drawing with canonical symbols, straight lines for wires, and labels/notes

(3) LAYOUT: a 3D (or multi-layer 2D) physical representation for PCB, or in this case breadboarding

All three layers are useful. (Obviously you need layout to make a PCB, and you need a netlist for simulation.)

But for most humans, where we have 2D visual representations baked in, if you're trying to understand or communicate what's going on:

- It's really really hard to keep track of a bunch of text sentences like a netlist and node numbers/names for all but the simplest circuits -- maybe 3-5 elements?

- It's really really hard to follow a 3D layout of PCB tracks that leads to pads, and then having to remember pin orders etc.

- It's easiest to follow a schematic diagram. It's browsable. It contains "idioms", as you say, about signal flow, logical block groupings, etc.: purpose and intent and functionality, in a way that netlists and physical layouts don't.

FYI, for medium-large digital circuits, I don't think this is true: probably just reading VHDL/Verilog, like reading source code, makes more sense. This is closer to the "netlist" level. I think that's because you'd name modules and inputs/outputs in a way similar to how you'd name functions and arguments in software, which doesn't really apply to "Resistor" or "Capacitor" as primitives.

But for a pretty big practical range of mixed-mode and analog things, I'd argue that schematics really are the easiest level for our brains.

(Disclosure: I'm one of the founders of CircuitLab https://www.circuitlab.com/ (YC W13) where we've been building an online circuit simulator & schematic editor for a long time. Although I'm mostly on the simulation engine / netlist side. My cofounder and other teammates have done most of the schematic GUI work.)

IMHO solderless breadboards still have their place for prototyping some slow circuits, ballpark maybe < 1 MHz signals, if you're aware of the extra capacitance and limitations. :)

Re: Diode – Build, program, and simulate hardware

#68
post #47
post #42

Are there similar solutions without 3d view? I want to get a simulator that can show me what is going in the circuit, ideally slowed down a lot. For example I was making a dongle with resistor and capacitor which was delivering a pulse-short (i.e. removing power for a short period of time instead of delivering an impulse) and while I was able to confirm overall idea with some online simulator, dialing in capacitance…

orcad is the commercial classic for doing schematics with a spice backend. (spice is an oss engine out of berkeley for simulating circuits on computers. for dc it just solves the classic nodal analysis and for ac you can feed in things from a fantasy signal generator and capture things at various nodes in the circuit) there's also some pretty cool looking commercial web thing now that also will maintain netlists with…

I think altium has taken over as the top tier commercial offering in this space.

I always disliked Orcad. Especially because cadence had excellent software that predated OrCAD, and for reasons that I cannot fathom chose to promote OrCAD after they acquired it instead of the better software.

Here's a specific example in the interface. If you wanted to draw a wire, the keyboard shortcut of the old software was 'w' but orcad required you to type 'ctrl + w'. Why are you forcing me to use control when w doesn't do anything on its own? It was filled with similar tiny annoyances that just slowed things down. (Admittedly, it's been years since that was my primary work, and free stuff is good enough for what I do now.) I sincerely hope that orcad has continued to improve over the years.

Re: Diode – Build, program, and simulate hardware

#69
Damn the 3D graphics look great

This would be useful for opensource hardware projects (aimed at beginners) to literally see how things are wired together. I'm still not at the schematic phase myself. But I use MS Paint wiring diagrams.

OMG the wires flex, damn

Re: Diode – Build, program, and simulate hardware

#70
post #69

Damn the 3D graphics look great This would be useful for opensource hardware projects (aimed at beginners) to literally see how things are wired together. I'm still not at the schematic phase myself. But I use MS Paint wiring diagrams. OMG the wires flex, damn

Give KiCad a try for drawing schematics. It is FOSS.
Post reply on HN