Subscripts in pin names

In majority of the cases, subscripts or superscripts are appended as text next to V, so VDD or VCC would work just fine. Care must be taken in the cases where some chips have VCC and VDD as power connections and they are hidden in the schematic. You should explicitly connect VCC, VDD with your power source which comes out of a regulator like V3_3 or V5_0 or direct input as V5_0

Hope this helps

Mansoor

Sure, they "work" just fine, but it's too bad that CAD software doesn't make it easy to have them *look* the way they were intended as well.

These days I never hide power pins... it's quite uncommon today to have designs that don't have multiple rail voltages running around.

---Joel

It would be a pretty stupid engineer who didnt know what VCC was if it wasnt in superscript ! I use up to 8 character net names in my software and it works fine.

You're missing the point: Just because one can get by without subscripts, lower case, (effectively) unlimited length pin names, etc. is no reason to not support them in a piece of software. Heck, people got along just fine on PCs when file names were restricted to upper-case only, 8.3 characters, no spaces, etc... but I'd wager that most people wouldn't want to go back to that system, now that they're used to being able to do more.

But you have to draw a line somewhere, you cant go on adding functions and expansions indefinitely. At some point you have to sell the software. I am not Microsoft just a one man band. Software is like that fairground game where you hit a man on the head with a hammer and a little later another man pops up somewhere else. Thats a bit like debugging. Keep it simple and you shouldnt get as many bugs. Get into bloatware and you will never meet deadlines or in some cases ever finish coz the plug has been pulled.

Sure you can. And keep in mind that, if the features are truly useful, if you don't add them, sooner or later your competitors will.

Yes, version 1.0. Then you sell version 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, then 95, 2000, XP, Vista... oh wait, that's Microsoft, isn't it? But everyone else does much the same thing these days.

I'd modify that to Einstein's "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."

I can take programs I wrote in C back in the 1980s and re-write them today in something like Python in 1/4 the time. Are they bigger? Oh yeah, absolutely. Are they slower? On a number of clock cycles basis, yes they are -- significantly so. Are they still good, "solid" bits of code? Sure. What still matters most? Development time and ease of maintainability. Relaxing the standards for memory footprint and number of raw CPU clock cycles helps both of these considerably.

Agreed, this is a significant danger. Good companies often prioritize software development into features the software "must" have, "would be really great to have," and "appeals to some obscure user in Pocatello" categories.

You forgot to mention the codebase fork. ;-)

When your corp has so many (acquired) products that some compete with others and you make decisions about which ones to abandon, then, yeah--an ECAD corp looks a lot like the Borg.