On Dec 2, 2008, at 8:06 PM, Dan McMahill wrote: > John Doty wrote: >> On Dec 2, 2008, at 11:34 AM, al davis wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday 02 December 2008, John Doty wrote: >>>> On the other hand, we already have in gEDA a simple, >>>> flexible, concrete, well-documented format for graphics, >>>> attributes, and netlist information: the schematic format. It >>>> can even represent pure netlists without actual graphics. Why >>>> not identify limitations of that format and enhance it? >>> Nice joke. >>> >> >> Not a joke at all. You are invited to post pointers to clear, concise >> documentation for a better candidate. But please nothing more like >> that sales brochure disguised as a Verilog-AMS text you induced me to >> buy... > > I'm sorry you don't like that book and that you haven't found a use > for > Verilog-A or Verilog-AMS. My experience has been that Verilog-A has > been critical for many many real life simulation problems. I'm > speaking > as one who has written thousands of lines of Verilog-A code to solve > real problems. > > I'll reiterate an assertion I made earlier. One of the big current > challenges with those two tools is you can't get access currently to > either without spending a lot of money.
But it seems that you cannot even penetrate the fog of hype around them without spending both a lot of time and money. I have no doubt that in the hands of specialists these tools are very useful. But such specialists can't generally comprehend what, say, an astrophysicist needs from a nondispersive x-ray spectrometer design. So, the astrophysicist can't get the job done himself (the fog surrounding the tool's capabilities is too thick), nor can he get a specialist to do the design. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list geda-dev@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
