I don't want to put anyone on the spot, but I think Victor's comments
here
were premature.
Whereas "What we are doing is always just the right thing" is a good
theme
while digging foxholes or charging fortified enemy positions, it is
not really necessary while building bridges in peacetime.
Victor Berman wrote:
>
> ... 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.
In reality, I doubt Victor ar anyone else can identify more than 10%
in the standards approved which were NOT rephrasings or reaffirmations
of functionality already implemented in currently existing EDA tools.
For example, the synthesis Backus-Naur was in the form of crossings-out
and corrections of the Backus-Naur of preexisting standards,
corrected--NOT REPLACED--and now hailed as new. What's wrong here?
> 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.
>
This is very true: Yhe good work was in the features rescheduled
and put off for the future. After those features have been
implemented and made available commercially, presumably there will
be enough happy tool developers on the committees that they will
be approved for standardization. Why take a chance on software
design without code already available to cut-and-paste? It would
be a tragic embarassment to have to say, "We don't know how to do
that part of the standard yet!"
My question is, why should we so glowingly praise the hardening
of the arteries we so far have accomplished?
My answer is indirect: Let's get over the need to show we
know everything.
Let's do the standard the way it should be done, and ALLOW
EDA developers to admit to those sections they can not yet make
available for the customer. In my opinion, this will be
good for EDA tool users and for business, too!
--
John
jwill@pacbell.net
John Michael Williams