SuperSpice Source Code

[mstevens]

Per my thread at https://www.eevblog.com/forum/eda/superspice-is-now-free/

After an email exchange with Kevin Aylward , http://www.anasoft.co.uk/, here is some of what he had to say

"Well... been thinking about freebeeing SS for quite a while. Its served its purpose. I give any sales money to my 80 year old mum anyway. The recent prompter was MicroCap closing shop.
 
I have my main day job as an Analog IC Designer and have a few more years left before considering retirement!
 
If anyone wants a copy of the SS code and the separate XSpice engine code they are ware welcome to it. The issue with the SS GUI code though, is that it uses a 3rd part class library by codejock. One would need to get a copy of that code from them.The XSpice code is straight MFC/C.
 
 
I read the blog. (I told him to read my EEVBlog Forum post)
 
The key bit about SuperSpice compared to LTSpice, is that it directly supports worst case corner models. I work for a relatively small company such that we don't have many licences to run our Cadence system. SS allows me to do a lot of design of the individuala blocks outwith Cadence whilst simultaneously using Cadence for the bigger jobs.. This genuinely saves $10ks. This would be impossible in LTSpice."

You can get the code from the links he gave me below.

www.anasoft.co.uk/XSpice22ndOct2017.zip
www.anasoft.co.uk/SuperSpice1stJan2019.zip

I think this is very generous of Kevin, Please drop him a note and let him know his contribution is appreciated. You can find his email address at http://www.anasoft.co.uk/



Also if you are going to use his code, PLEASE do the right thing and give him appropriate credit!!!

[SiliconWizard]

Thanks!

Kind of confirms my point on GUI frameworks though....

[mstevens]

Thanks!

Kind of confirms my point on GUI frameworks though....

Please do not turn this thread into a "GUI frameworks" thread. PLEASE!!

[nctnico]

Great progress! It would be nice to see if the code can be compiled. Preferably with the free version of Visual Studio.

How about licensing? It would be nice if this project can be brought under an open source license. Probably not GPL but there are others.

[SiliconWizard]

I was able to build XSpice (both 32-bit and 64-bit) with Visual Studio after fixing a couple things: first add include paths in the additional include directories for the project: ".;./Src/INCLUDE" (they were missing for the 32-bit target, and defined as some developer's local directories for the 64-bit one), and second, change the constant 'M_2PI' to '2.0*M_PI ' in the file 'Inpptree.c' ('M_2PI' was not defined at least on my VS), line 102.

SS itself requires a third-party library as the OP said, so it's not buildable without it.

[mstevens]

Great progress! It would be nice to see if the code can be compiled. Preferably with the free version of Visual Studio.

How about licensing? It would be nice if this project can be brought under an open source license. Probably not GPL but there are others.

You should email Kevin about licensing. His email address can be found at http://www.anasoft.co.uk/.

[mstevens]

You should email Kevin about licensing. His email address can be found at http://www.anasoft.co.uk/.

Melvin Stevens
[/quote]

Got an email from Kevin, in which he said
 
"There is no code worth protecting."

This was a response to my query abou licensing... So I guess it is now considered FREEWARE!!!

[nctnico]

You should email Kevin about licensing. His email address can be found at http://www.anasoft.co.uk/.

Melvin Stevens

Got an email from Kevin, in which he said
 
"There is no code worth protecting."

This was a response to my query abou licensing... So I guess it is now considered FREEWARE!!!

Still it would be better to put a license in place so people making additions/modifications to the code are bound to the same rules. The problem open source licenses solve is that when multiple people (or entities) work on the same software they all become part copyright holders. The problem in that is that each copyright holder has a say over what may or may not be done with the software. This can turn into a mess.

[mstevens]

Still it would be better to put a license in place so people making additions/modifications to the code are bound to the same rules. The problem open source licenses solve is that when multiple people (or entities) work on the same software they all become part copyright holders. The problem in that is that each copyright holder has a say over what may or may not be done with the software. This can turn into a mess.

I think so, I will point Kevin to this response and see what he says.