> Bhasker and SIWG:
>
> I would like to congratulate all of you on a fine piece of work.
> This effort required an outstanding level of focus so as not to get
> distracted by all the "other" things that could have theoretically
> gone into this specification. The SIWG under the able leadership
> of j. Bhasker were surely tempted to solve all the existing problems
> in today's synthesis world including raising the abstraction level,
> and defining new semantics for behavioral and other higher level
> synthesis domains.
They were tempted and they tried actually. Then, unable to achieve a
consensus they backed down to achieve **something**. Bhasker
had an impossible task and he did the best anybody could expect of
him or anyone else. However, in my opinion, a standard must
raise the bar for everybody and lead them into the future. This standard
doesn't lead us anywhere but to the past! I don't question Bhasker's
leadership -- he got the job done. I question the leadership of the industry
and the leading software developers (in particular Synopsys.) They should have
been out front pushing the boundary (which they are exceptionally good
at). Why didn't they push for a better standard??? I just don't get it.
>
> However, even though they had the expertise to embark on such
> a mission, they realized that a successful standard needs first and
> foremost to be built on a solid set of semantics that can be universally
> understood and agreed to by all participants. This specification goes
> a long way toward achieving that goal and correcting the current chaotic
> situation where the semantics of synthesis is tool defined rather than
> language based.
You say "universally understood" and agreed by "all" participants. That
certainly
isn't true because I voted against it. Plus, there were only about 100
voters on the ballot. If there are only 100 synthesis users out there then we
completely wasted our time and no standard is necessary. I doubt 100% consensus
could be
achieved for this type of standard. Somebody would always be disappointed.
But attempting to achieve 100% is an admirable goal. Negative comments
were simply thrown away with the "that is a Level II feature" comment (because
that
is something Synopsys won't/can't do right now) instead of a solid technical
reason for/against. That isn't leadership! In fact I think this standard quite
clearly spits in the face of each individual who worked tirelessly to get the
1993 LRM written. What about those people? This standard says to hell
with them and their syntax/semantics we like the LRM'87 better.
>
> There is certainly an opportunity to be discouraged by how long
> and difficult it is to define and standardize a specification like this one,
> but this opportunity is better spent on celebrating the significant
> progress that has been made and looking forward to more good work
> in the future.
>
I am very discouraged, disheartened and upset. I don't think it is time
to celebrate because we have taken a step back instead of a step
forward. I believe the IEEE's standardization process is hugely beneficial
for important standards in the power systems (and other) fields but it isn't
nimble enough for these types of standards. Maybe it is time to consider
another approach.
>
> Well Done!
>
> Victor Berman
> DASC Chair
--Tim Davis Aspen Logic
EM: TimDavis@AspenLogic.com WB: www.aspenlogic.com/~timdavis PH: +1 (303) 426-0800 FX: +1 (303) 426-1023