Subject: [vhdl-200x] RE: [vhdl-200x-dta] Object oriented VHDL
From: Kevin Cameron x3251 (Kevin.Cameron@nsc.com)
Date: Tue May 13 2003 - 18:06:33 PDT
> From: "Peter Ashenden" <peter@ashenden.com.au>
>
> Perhaps a bit of history might be helpful. I was chair of the OOVHDL
> working group while it was active. It is now defunct, and its PAR
> withdrawn.
>
....
Thanks for history - very useful.
>
> Let the games begin...
My main problem with the stuff that was thrown into SystemVerilog is
that it doesn't look much like any real programming language - the 3.0
version was heading in the direction of C compatibility and I was
hoping that 3.1 would head in the direction of C++ (which didn't happen).
I'm glad you mentioned CSP and process control, since only minimal
support was added for that too in SystemVerilog - my proposal for
language-neutral channels was also rejected.
Extensions which allow you to define processes which can be easily either
software or hardware would be really nice, and having syntax/semantics
that translate easily into C/C++ used by most embedded processors is a
plus too.
Kev.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue May 13 2003 - 18:15:03 PDT