@Timot05 I wish you the best. Among other things, you are reinventing Verilog and other attempts. Yet, of course, evolution does not happen without people wh

@Timot05 I wish you the best. Among other things, you are reinventing Verilog and other attempts. Yet, of course, evolution does not happen without people who are willing to devote their valuable time and effort to consider new ideas. My personal perspective, after having designed hundreds of PCB's, is that there's a reason for which symbol-based data entry has survived decades of computer-based circuit design evolution. I have also written more software than I can remember in more languages than I am able to list. I have less than zero interest in using a software process to describe circuits of any kind. What makes sense for hardware design inside an FPGA somehow does not translate well outside the chip. Software and hardware engineering are very different things. It is probably correct to bring-up the fact that many have tried to turn software engineering into precisely the opposite; dragging symbols around and connecting them in schematic form. That approach has failed but for the most trivial educational tools. > Could you imagine the pain of building an entire software product using only assembly code? That’s about how we felt designing hardware. Having done this dozens of times, I don't think it is painful and don't see a parallel between assembly coding and designing electronics. In fact, assembly coding is easy for the professional experienced software engineer. Of course, it is probably close to a nightmare for someone who's never done it or never even studied machine level coding. Ballroom dancing is impossible for me. I am not a dancer. And it should be in a range between difficult and impossible for anyone without the requisite training and practice. So, that's not the right metric. Drawing schematics is easy. Schematics convey lots of information quickly. Function, structure, constraints, implementation notes, support/service notes, fabrication guidelines, etc. Also, they are trivially and instantly easy to understand, gather around and discuss. They present a mental image and state that would require fairly deep concentration to develop if reading a schematic as code (except for trivial circuits, which don't really matter). Schematics, as I said earlier, have survived the test of time for a reason: They work. That's not to say a different approach isn't possible. All I am saying is that I would think hard before attempting something that very clearly few engineers want and care about. For reference, I started life drawing all of my schematics and PCB layouts by hand. I then transitioned to using AutoCAD v1.0 and writing tons of LISP code to make that easier. From there I migrated and used a bunch of tools most experienced EE's have touched: OrCAD, Protel, Mentor, Cadence, Altium, KiCad, Eagle and likely others I can't remember. Oh, yes, I also completed a few layouts back in the day using X-acto knives and stick-on traces and doughnuts on vellum. That was fun. This page shows a number of approaches. I all of these back in the early 80's. https://www.pcbwizards.com/handtape.htm https://www.pcbwizards.com/handtape.htm Yes, that's a roll of black tape she is using: https://i.imgur.com/yUgZ5zz.png https://i.imgur.com/yUgZ5zz.png Schematics are not the problem. This isn't intended to discourage you at all. All I am suggesting is that you might want to interview 100 EE's and see if this matches the idea of "build something people want". Don't interview software guys who tinker with electronics as a hobby (unless that's your audience). Interview real, working, EE's with 10+ years of experience using EDA tools from different vendors and generations. My prediction is that you will quickly discover nearly nobody cares about moving away from schematics. You will definitely find other pain pain points, just not schematics.