The season is changing here (US/EST) and with it, so changes the local flora and fauna, including the human animal. I woke up a little feisty today, and decided to indulge it on this list by revisiting the embedded scripting issue.
It occurred to me while having a walk about a few moments ago that there could be a confusion of two separate ideas in these discussions: first, is embedding an interpreter into the run-time results of the ghdl compiler (into the simulation model); the second is embedding an interpreter into the ghdl compiler itself (extending its capabilities in some way, I suppose). I've been thinking and remarking entirely on the first scenario. On 10/26/2016 04:20 PM, Patrick Lehmann wrote: > Using IPC is a big performance hit. It might be good enough for analysis > tasks, but it's a bottleneck for co-simulations. Others on this list have used the IPC technique. They're probably better equipped to remark on performance issues and partitioning thresholds. > I saw an EDA tool which has 2 embedded scripting languages: Tcl and Python! Cool. Seems like a lot of work, but options are cool when they're free. > Counter question: Why do CAD tool users think that Tcl is a GOOD > embedded scripting language? There is plenty of text here: http://yosefk.com/blog/i-cant-believe-im-praising-tcl.html May you find elucidation and illumination. (Feisty, I say!) > Just because vendors ship their tools with > Tcl, doesn't make Tcl a good language... Counter question: Why do assume that is the reason? (Rhetorical question, I know why. (Have I mentioned the feistiness?)). It's not a poor reason - if CAD tool users already know the syntax, that reduces the obstacles and burdens. _______________________________________________ Ghdl-discuss mailing list Ghdl-discuss@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
