We're largely on board with the same problem's we're trying to tackle, and I most certainly understand why you're making these criticisms of these trivial examples and our current implementation. You're right to - these simple designs aren't where designing PCBAs with code will shine (we expect!).

Currently when you discuss configuring a regulator, it's beholden upon the designer to understand enough of the internals to configure it because, in our opinion, schematics aren't well suited to designing things that are configurable and plastic - either in topological terms, or in their parameters. Our hope isn't to abstract this complexity directly by using code, but rather because code allows the workflow itself to change, for a well tested and trusted configurable block to completely abstract the internals such that a designer can forget about it (like a tested piece of code). We want to bring configurability on this "trusted" scale in from the physical world of modules to the world of highly descriptive code. It's a tall order, I'll indeed admit!

It's also well worth nothing that while at the moment we're running lean on the visualisations, we do agree they're an extremely potent tool to convey the topology of a design at a glance. We expect we'll be adding a visualiser which should be used to gain familiarity with a circuit, diff it for review and understand it from a system level (by viewing topology by interface type etc...) - unlike current schematics that implicitly hold so much content via the positioning of components.

Thanks for the detailed comment!