FPGA Central

Just wondered if this thread will grow as large as its mirror!!!

The question is do I love VHDL too much?
I find that when given a project I will immediately find a way of doing in
VHDL, I don't even
spare I thought to the microprocessor (probably cos my C is no where near as
good as my VHDL :-) )

When my micro buddy asks why I don't use a PIC or something similar, I tell
him that if I wanted a PIC
I would write a PIC architecture in VHDL and use that!!! (tongue in cheek)

Surely I am becoming a VHDL nut, what am I missing out on by looking at
FPGA/CPLDs to do everything??

Comments welcome,

Matt

As is said about Jazz "If you gotta ask you ain't got it"

Additionally, non-technical humour is outwith the scope of this newsgroup

Regards

DrB

"Matt North" <m.r.w.north@NO_SPAMrl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:cakibr$[email protected]..
> Just wondered if this thread will grow as large as its mirror!!!
>
> The question is do I love VHDL too much?
> I find that when given a project I will immediately find a way of doing in
> VHDL, I don't even
> spare I thought to the microprocessor (probably cos my C is no where near
as
> good as my VHDL :-) )
>
> When my micro buddy asks why I don't use a PIC or something similar, I
tell
> him that if I wanted a PIC
> I would write a PIC architecture in VHDL and use that!!! (tongue in cheek)
>
> Surely I am becoming a VHDL nut, what am I missing out on by looking at
> FPGA/CPLDs to do everything??
>
> Comments welcome,
>
> Matt
>
>

I see a lot changes in the design and verification effort, and VHDL is only a
small aspect of the picture. Assertion-Based Verification (ABV) with languages
like PSL or SystemVerilog are gaining popularity. PSL supports Verilog and
VHDL and is used to specify requirements at the top level and interface levels,
along with design properties for the RTL level. PSL follows many of the rules
of the native language that it supports. Many engineers feel that VHDL is
restrictive for verification because it lacks the ability to traverse levels of
design hierarchy, and to read output ports, both needed for PSL or for regular
testbench designs. Those engineers "hate" those aspects of the VHDL, and
prefer Verilog.
VHDL200x provides many improvements in VHDL, including traversing the
hierarchy, reading output ports, interfaces, and support of PSL. For the
record, SystemVerilog 3.1a LRM is out (http://www.accellera.org/), and many
tool vendors are beginning to support it -- a very important factor.
SystemVerilog provides several features in the field of design and
verification, including an agressive assertion language, though comparable in
many respects to PSL.

<Surely I am becoming a VHDL nut...>
My suggestion before becoming a VHDL nut is to look at the whole design
environment, and languages that support this environment (now and in the
future). You may change your views on what "nut" to like.
Ben
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Cohen Trainer, Consultant, Publisher (310) 721-4830
http://www.vhdlcohen.com/ [email protected]
Author of following textbooks:
* Using PSL/SUGAR for Formal and Dynamic Verification 2nd Edition, 2004 isbn
0-9705394-6-0
* Real Chip Design and Verification Using Verilog and VHDL, 2002 isbn
0-9705394-2-8
* Component Design by Example ", 2001 isbn 0-9705394-0-1
* VHDL Coding Styles and Methodologies, 2nd Edition, 1999 isbn 0-7923-8474-1
* VHDL Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, 2nd Edition, isbn 0-7923-8115
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <cakibr$[email protected]>,
Matt North <m.r.w.north@NO_SPAMrl.ac.uk> wrote:
>Just wondered if this thread will grow as large as its mirror!!!
>
>The question is do I love VHDL too much?

Yes. If you can say you love a technology of any kind, chances are you've
gone too far.


>I find that when given a project I will immediately find a way of doing in
>VHDL,

I own a good hammer so everything I need to work on is a nail.


> I don't even
>spare I thought to the microprocessor (probably cos my C is no where near as
>good as my VHDL :-) )

Chances are, you should be using ASM in the micro. In many cases it is
easier to produce a working product that way.

>When my micro buddy asks why I don't use a PIC or something similar, I tell
>him that if I wanted a PIC
>I would write a PIC architecture in VHDL and use that!!! (tongue in cheek)

Why write it? I'm sure you can get/buy it somewhere.


--
--
[email protected] forging knowledge

> >The question is do I love VHDL too much?
>
> Yes. If you can say you love a technology of any kind, chances are you've
> gone too far.

Ken, as you might imagine i meant 'love' in a technical admiration sense.
I am not about to book a romantic weekend away with my FPGA!!! ;-}

> >I find that when given a project I will immediately find a way of doing
in
> >VHDL,
>
> I own a good hammer so everything I need to work on is a nail.

I own a bog standard hammer, are you suggesting i buy a 'good hammer'?



"Ken Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:calb2k$k9m$[email protected]..
> In article <cakibr$[email protected]>,
> Matt North <m.r.w.north@NO_SPAMrl.ac.uk> wrote:
> >Just wondered if this thread will grow as large as its mirror!!!
> >
> >The question is do I love VHDL too much?
>
> Yes. If you can say you love a technology of any kind, chances are you've
> gone too far.
>
>
> >I find that when given a project I will immediately find a way of doing
in
> >VHDL,
>
> I own a good hammer so everything I need to work on is a nail.
>
>
> > I don't even
> >spare I thought to the microprocessor (probably cos my C is no where near
as
> >good as my VHDL :-) )
>
> Chances are, you should be using ASM in the micro. In many cases it is
> easier to produce a working product that way.
>
> >When my micro buddy asks why I don't use a PIC or something similar, I
tell
> >him that if I wanted a PIC
> >I would write a PIC architecture in VHDL and use that!!! (tongue in
cheek)
>
> Why write it? I'm sure you can get/buy it somewhere.
>
>
> --
> --
> [email protected] forging knowledge
>

"Matt North" <m.r.w.north@NO_SPAMrl.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<cam7j6$[email protected]>...
> > >The question is do I love VHDL too much?

I am also a VHDL afficionado, but you seem to exaggerate...
The only strong point for Verilog is tool/vendor support when dealing
with ASIC processes. Good market adoption makes it a success but not a
good language (VHDL is a success too, in several occasions). This is
similar to a particular desktop processor tale!

> > >I find that when given a project I will immediately find a way of doing
> in VHDL,
Extravaganza! I am also an extreme coder. Last week, i finished a
rather complex design (a complicated program control unit adapted to
an academic microprocessor). My boss/supervisor never thought that i
would make it without spending much time with the spec. In reality,
the spec evolved with the code... Not to mention picturing whole
schematics from the plain code (like visualizing the world of Matrix
from its code!).

However... this is not the right way... only a way to get things right
:-)

Never a supervisor will accept this fact. But he hasn't written any
code since Argentina won the World Cup!

> > >I would write a PIC architecture in VHDL and use that!!! (tongue in
> cheek)
> > Why write it? I'm sure you can get/buy it somewhere.

Here, my friend Matt you are very wrong. Your position is the hobbyist
one.

Simple plain logic determines that reinventing the wheel is not a good
marketing option.

The fact is that there are companies that redesign old micros like
Z80, or even the 8051. Several of these new designs are pipelined
versions of the old ones. I hope that your job requires redesigning a
PIC. Or that this is your hobby.


Uncle "The G.B. Man" Noah

Uncle,

> I am also a VHDL afficionado, but you seem to exaggerate...

Maybee ;-)

In reality,
> the spec evolved with the code... Not to mention picturing whole
> schematics from the plain code

This is one of the things i like about VHDL, you can split code into
'logical' (not in the 74xx sense) blocks
and instantiate them as components in the top level design. I find this
makes life so much easier when testing.
I can visualise where a problem might be and partition the design by
removing components or plugging new
components in and watching the results.

> Here, my friend Matt you are very wrong. Your position is the hobbyist
> one.
>
> Simple plain logic determines that reinventing the wheel is not a good
> marketing option.

You are right, i suppose i would be classed as a hobbyist. The company i
work does not sell any electronics,
it sells a service to international scientists that visit our facility. I am
employed to design and build diagnostics
and control equipment for the machine, therfore i have no time to market and
i am given free reign as to how
the design is implemented.

I realise that for companies that market their designs, simulation may take
longer than the coding. This would
be impossible for myself, the code is only 50% of what i do, i still have
the schematic, pcb and chassis drawings
to design and then testing, installation, commissioning and instrument
support.

Matt

In article <cam7j6$[email protected]>,
Matt North <m.r.w.north@NO_SPAMrl.ac.uk> wrote:
[....]
>I own a bog standard hammer, are you suggesting i buy a 'good hammer'?

I have a nice one that is about a 25 pounder. Its XP compatible.

--
--
[email protected] forging knowledge

> I have a nice one that is about a 25 pounder. Its XP compatible.

Sounds good........i'm seriously thinking of upgrading to a THOR AP12
Aluminium and plastic hammer.
It gives the user a choice of persuasive use with the plastic head or
destruction with the aluminium head.

"Ken Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:caq66h$shf$[email protected]..
> In article <cam7j6$[email protected]>,
> Matt North <m.r.w.north@NO_SPAMrl.ac.uk> wrote:
> [....]
> >I own a bog standard hammer, are you suggesting i buy a 'good hammer'?
>
> I have a nice one that is about a 25 pounder. Its XP compatible.
>
> --
> --
> [email protected] forging knowledge
>

In article <carh6s$[email protected]>,
Matt North <m.r.w.north@NO_SPAMrl.ac.uk> wrote:
>> I have a nice one that is about a 25 pounder. Its XP compatible.
>
>Sounds good........i'm seriously thinking of upgrading to a THOR AP12
>Aluminium and plastic hammer.
>It gives the user a choice of persuasive use with the plastic head or
>destruction with the aluminium head.

Now that THOR inc. has been bought out by McDisneyMart Corp. they import
cheap junk and put their label on it. If the head isn't hand forged it
won't completely uninstall XP from the hard disk.

--
--
[email protected] forging knowledge