On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:39 AM, Dan McMahill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess I haven't found the fog to be any thicker or clearer than any > number of programming languages. But then again, I had some Verilog-HDL > experience prior to Verilog-A and Verilog-AMS. I won't argue that you > currently have to spend the money though. The time really wasn't bad. > Now if you don't have access to the tools and you're not writing the > tools, then yeah the book isn't that useful. But then again a book on > perl, ruby, samba, or apache would also be fairly useless if you didn't > actually have one of those tools at hand to work with. Why can't some funding flow into some of the tools available to make that -A/MS happen? Icarus, GHDL, freehdl, ngspice and gnucap are all tools that are in use, but none of them really support the concept of A/MS (yet) in the Verilog/VHDL-AMS concept. Until that happens lots of money has to be spent to be able to do "real" AMS > > Perhaps the other issue is that those who do a lot with Verilog-A or > Verilog-AMS are generally not in a position to freely discuss what > exactly it was they did with it or and specifics of how they did what > they did. Ken Kundert knows what he is talking about and he offers enough information on http://www.designers-guide.org/index.html for anybody interested in AMS to get up to date on the advantages of doing things the AMS way. Until some more momentum is gained, either closed-source crippled evaluations or $s has to be used. Funding ($) is a nice way of making things happen :-) -- Svenn _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
