I'd rather switch than fight!
in [FPGA]
|
From: whygee on 16 Apr 2010 13:53 rickman wrote: > Hmmm... The date on that article is 04/07/2003 11:28 AM EDT. Seven > years later I still don't see any sign that VHDL is going away... or > did I miss something? I had the same thought. Furthermore it was about only one company who wanted to push one technology. Bold statements followed, and... 7 years later, VHDL and Verilog are still the Vi vs Emacs of EDA. > Rick yg -- http://ygdes.com / http://yasep.org
From: glen herrmannsfeldt on 16 Apr 2010 14:32 In comp.arch.fpga rickman <gnuarm(a)gmail.com> wrote: (snip, I wrote) >> Seatbelts may save lives, but statistically many other safety >> improvements don't. ?When people know that their car has air bags, >> they compensate and drive less safely. ?(Corner a little faster, etc.) >> Enough to mostly remove the life saving effect of the air bags. > Are you making this up? I have never heard that any of the other > added safety features don't save lives overall. I have heard that > driving a sportier car does allow you to drive more aggressively, but > this is likely not actually the result of any real analysis, but just > an urban myth. Where did you hear that air bags don't save lives > after considering all? I believe that they still do save lives, but by a smaller factor than one might expect. I believe the one that I saw was not quoting air bags, but anti-lock brakes. The case for air bags was mentioned by someone else -- that some believe that they don't need seat belts if they have air bags. Without seat belts, though, you can be too close to the air bag when it deploys, and get hurt by the air bag itself. For that reason, they now use slower air bags than they used to. The action of anti-lock breaks has a more immediate feel while driving, and it seems likely that many will take that into account while driving. I believe that there is still a net gain, but much smaller than would be expected. -- glen
From: Bernd Paysan on 16 Apr 2010 14:56 Andy wrote: > IMHO, they missed the point. Any design that can be completed in a > couple of hours will necessarily favor the language with the least > overhead. Unfortunately, two-hour-solvable designs are not > representative of real life designs, and neither was the contest's > declared winner. Well, we pretty much know that the number of errors people make in programming languages basically depends on how much code they have to write - a language which has less overhead and is more terse is being written faster and has less bugs. And it goes non-linear, i.e. a program with 10k lines of code will have less bugs per 1000 lines than a program with 100k lines of code. So the larger the project, the better the more terse language is. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself!" http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
From: Patrick Maupin on 16 Apr 2010 17:08 On Apr 16, 12:58 pm, rickman <gnu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > That is certainly a great way to prove a theory. Toss out every data > point that disagrees with your theory! Well, I don't really need others to agree with my theory, so if that's how it's viewed, so be it. Nonetheless, I view it as tossing out data that was taken under different conditions than the ones I live under. Although the basics don't change (C, C++, Java, Verilog, VHDL are all turing-complete, as are my workstation and the embedded systems I sometimes program on), the details can make things qualitatively enough different that they actually appear to be quantatively different. It's like quantum mechanics vs. Newtonian physics. For example, on my desktop, if I'm solving an engineering problem, I might throw Python and numpy, or matlab, and gobs of RAM and CPU at it. On a 20 MIPS, fixed point, low-precision embedded system with a total of 128K memory, I don't handle the problem the same way. I find the same with language differences. I assumed your complaint when you started this thread was that a particular language was *forcing* you into a paradigm you felt might be sub-optimal. My opinion is that, even when languages don't *force* you into a particular paradigm, there is an impedance match between coding style and language that you ignore at the peril of your own frustration. So when somebody says " I don't change the way I code when I code in Verilog vs. VHDL or C vs. Java, the compiler just does a better job of catching my stupid mistakes, allowing me to get things done faster." I just can't even *relate* to that viewpoint. It is that of an alien from a different universe, so has no bearing on my day to day existence. Regards, Pat
From: Patrick Maupin on 16 Apr 2010 17:09
On Apr 16, 1:25 pm, rickman <gnu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hmmm... The date on that article is 04/07/2003 11:28 AM EDT. Seven > years later I still don't see any sign that VHDL is going away... or > did I miss something? True, but you also have to remember in the early 90s that all the industry pundits thought verilog was dead... |