> Both have the same result, but the ratsnest is always faster.

I simulate as much as I can (e.g using LTSpice) and then go straight to circuit board (DIY at home laser/LED printer toner transfer). Mucking around with unreliable breadboards isn't much fun.

It's too easy to make mistakes and bad connections in breadboard layouts. Then if it's not working, you have to figure out whether it's the circuit, a mistake in the assembly, or a bad connection.

If I'm going to go to PCB anyway, might as well route that and use it from the get go.

sorry for sounding green, but I've been tinkering in electronics, and PCB design is has been the part that's daunting.

I would prefer to make PCBs, but how do you handle the footprint of some components? like do you measure each one and then design it in eagle?

The datasheet for the components almost always describe the dimensions and often the recommended footprint (landing zone). Depending on the industry different additional standards apply (for example “space grade” have increased focus on reliability; mobile devices on area reduction; etc)

CAD packages ship with or have collections of common footprints, but be aware that there aren’t truly standards and two footprints might be named the same but have quite different dimensions (even within a single manufacturer). It is rare but it happens and thus it is worth checking.

KiCAD has a large repository of common footprint layouts which I believe is of a reasonable quality, but I have never used them myself.

Well, if you ever deal with sensitive analog signals, what you're doing would reduce delays and inductive pick up from other lines. Of course, you'd only clear the area for those, not the whole board.