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:

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

Reply via email to