Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (748696)	10/22/2013 4:48:07 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571973

CJ, It is not the languages but the tools and methodologies used. I've worked on projects that used vastly different languages, tools, and methodologies, even within Intel. We kind of have to, given all of the different blocks we need to integrate. If I had it my way, I would use nothing but SystemVerilog (and maybe some C++) to verify every chip design, but of course, I almost never get to do things my way, nor do I ever have the luxury to choose the most ideal language or tool for the job. One of my mentors at Intel put it best. In the end, it doesn't really matter what new methodology, new language, or new API comes out to make our jobs "easier." All of that just results in a learning curve, but each one has its advantages and faults. In the end, we just have to get our hands dirty and flush out as many design bugs as we can before tapeout. How does this relate to software design? In my opinion, it really doesn't matter what language you choose, or what tool you need. If all you had was C++, you could still do the job, if not efficiently. Maybe even Fortran if you're a gray-bearded programmer who remembers using punch cards ... Tenchusatsu