Sharing high-quality news & opinions about semiconductors and Electronic Design Automation (EDA).
It's like professional boxing, where there are now so many sanctioning organizations (WBA, WBC, WBO, IBF, ...) that the average person has no idea who the real champions are, and
no longer really cares, either.
I see it more like the different levels of professional baseball - Accellera especially (don't know much about the others)is like AAA ball - when the standard is strong enough, it's called up to the majors (IEEE). The stability required for wide adoption lies with the IEEE, but I have a feeling that it must be relatively painful to start an EDA standard there from the beginning.It's funny that the same thing doesn't go for other electrical standards...JMF
Having been to both the low power and Troublemakers panels at DVCon, it's unclear to me whether or not Cadence really wants to work towards merging the standards. Cadence consistently said they would do what their customers want, and seemed to explicitly avoid saying anything about merging standards, implying (to me at least) that they were happy to go their own way if they felt they could be successful. (Of course, I suppose not saying you won't do something doesn't rule out anything either :-).
While there is a lot of management-ese complaints here, let me draw ur attention to the R&D effort involved.EDA is an industry of startups , before they're acquired anyway. Unless you have open-source databases like OpenAccess (excuse me while I try to manage the bloat), any startup would have to design its own database. It is nice (in theory) to talk about Object-oriented design and the need to change the API's only at a few places and it starts working magically everywhere. In reality, all applications running on the underlying database, TRUST it to work some-way, and it is quite an effort to migrate all that.Unless design companies push for it, it aint gonna happen.
Post a Comment