Bob La Quey wrote:
Again I ask you how would you have developed a chip?
Chuck has now at least a half a dozen serious chip
designs, all original, to his credit. All developed
with tools of his own design.
And I've actually done chip design with rubylith and xacto knives. It
doesn't mean it's a good idea.
I've also used Magic and Spice 3. Again, it doesn't make it a good idea.
The problem I have with Forth (and many of Chuck's tools) is that they
never seem like a force multiplier. Even back in my formative days as
an engineer and programmer, Forth never appealed. Assembly, BASIC,
FORTRAN, C were obvious. Even Prolog and Lisp struck a chord.
As a 9th grader I lumped Forth in with Pascal and never looked back.
Funny that. Especially since its pretty hard to lump a bright but
isolated 9th grader in with those whose brains have hardened too much to
get it.
Maybe the problem is uniqueness. Chuck doesn't mind coding a
specialized VLSI system to deliver a chip. I don't want to have to
recode a VLSI system for every chip I design--I want a tool that I can
reuse.
Maybe it's that difference in philosophy that means I "don't get it."
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
