[sv-bc] Re: [sv-ec] RE: [sv-cc] Notes from 26 February 2010 SystemVerilog Requirements Gathering Meeting

I'm much in sympathy with Gordon's concerns. As part of the SV-CC,
I became very much aware of how piecemeal the underlying language
is. A coherent overall language model would make it possible
to develop a coherent VPI model of the language as well; without it,
VPI itself will remain a piecemeal approach.

Jim Vellenga

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Vellenga (jvellenga@alum.mit.edu)
Senior software engineer for high-complexity software development in a
production environment; skilled at team-building while retaining a
detailed technical knowledge of the project itself. Excellent at
negotiating clear definitions (standards, interfaces, etc.) across
functional and industry boundaries.
781-646-6778 --- http://www.jimvellenga.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Gordon Vreugdenhil wrote:
>
>
> Gran, Alex wrote:
> [...]
>
>> "General Directions & Vision"
>> I think Gordon Vreugdenhil (Mentor) first brought this up if I
>> remember correctly. Trying to sum this discussion up into a single
>> sentence; There are people working on 1800 that are focused on 3
>> somewhat separate topics: design aspects, verification aspects,
>> assertion aspects of the language. Often times these 3 parties have
>> different visions of where they see the language going. There was
>> some discussion about trying to form a higher level Direction and
>> Vision to help keep the 3 main parties going the saw way
>
>
> Alex's summary is correct but just to elaborate on that a bit further,
> I am concerned that some requested feature enhancements are going
> to have substantial issues in terms of scaling to very large systems
> and may have problems in terms of being consistent with other aspects
> of SV. If we, as a general community, don't work on setting some sort
> of overall "trajectory" for SV by which we can shape the directions
> for specific requests, SV will become a grab-bag of features and
> any semantic consistency will be lost. We are already struggling
> with that as evidenced by user complaints about inconsistent rules
> and overall complexity. Having a more consistent overall model is,
> I believe, critical for long-term stability. There really is no
> group even attempting to do that kind of "study" or "long-term
> planning" right now and I think we need to take a serious look at
> whether we can get such a group together. There are definite
> problems along numerous fronts that could block such an attempt,
> but I think we need to try.
>
> Gord.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.