Schematic Drafting Standards

[Marco]

Other people not including the industry making schematic capture software, because it's a fact they can't even agree how to put the symbols in the libraries.

A debate about the desirability of how I'd prefer to consistently do it is completely orthogonal from the fact that the industry as a whole has absolutely no consistency. Not the software and not the users either.
It's most definetely not common practice to make a new symbol for every opamp you use, just so you can simultaneously let the signals flow neatly and have V+/V- top/bottom.

[tggzzz]

Other people not including the industry making schematic capture software, because it's a fact they can't even agree how to put the symbols in the libraries.

That point was addressed earlier. TLDR: CAD companies shouldn't, because only the circuit designer knows how to make their design comprehensible to other people.

A debate about the desirability of how I'd prefer to consistently do it is completely orthogonal from the fact that the industry as a whole has absolutely no consistency. Not the software and not the users either.
It's most definetely not common practice to make a new symbol for every opamp you use, just so you can simultaneously let the signals flow neatly and have V+/V- top/bottom.

Just because some users emit crap hardware or software designs/documentation doesn't mean nobody should.

Strive to be better than average!

[Marco]

Of course the software should have a consistent standard for the default symbols, the users make "extensive uses of Altium database thingies" after all.

If the libraries were at least consistent, then the schematics from the lazy users would be more consistent too. Instead it's coin flips down the line.

[tggzzz]

Of course the software should have a consistent standard for the default symbols, the users make "extensive uses of Altium database thingies" after all.

If the libraries were at least consistent, then the schematics from the lazy users would be more consistent too. Instead it's coin flips down the line.

Let's be clear: you think (ease of) understanding is less important than your preferred form of consistency. I disagree.

As Ralph Waldo Emerson memorably put it in 1841, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

[Marco]

Let's be clear: you think (ease of) understanding is less important than your preferred form of consistency. I disagree.

I have factual knowledge of my thoughts and I can quite objectively say you are wrong.

Why turn the factual observation of complete lack of consistency in the tooling and industry users into a discussion of my mindset though?