5 ms·

> He wrote his own chip design software and analog simulator I'm going to need a citation for that. I browsed through the website and wasn't able to find anyth

by Cyph0n 9y ago

> He wrote his own chip design software and analog simulator I'm going to need a citation for that. I browsed through the website and wasn't able to find anything at all mentioning the development of a full EDA software suite. There are only a handful of companies in the world that can build and maintain a full HDL + synthesis + P&R + layout + verification toolchain... Also, I would be interested to know what kind of process the GA144 is fabbed with.

Avshalom 9y ago
I don't know how much of the usual stack it accounts for or if it specifically was used for the GA144 but they're referring to OKAD, often talked about as in hundreds/thousands of lines of colorforth https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Moore+okad+forth&t=fpas&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Moore+okad+forth&t=fpas&ia=web
- Cyph0n 9y ago
  Before I put on my cynical hat, I'd like to say that it's pretty impressive stuff for a one-man shop in the 90s. ----- So it seems like OKAD is basically a layout editor, simulator, DRC checker, and GDSII compiler. The simulator uses a very simplistic transistor model that would only work at very old process nodes (>350nm?) due to the low impact of parsitics and leakage. Not even a moderately complex digital chip from the mid-90s could be designed and verified using such a simplistic toolchain. To provide a software analogy, Chuck wrote an assembler for a custom assembly dialect targeting e.g. x86, and then directly used that assembler to build an operating system kernel. Given the absence of "higher-level" constructs, the resulting OS will never be as complex as something like an NT kernel, especially due to the difficulty of testing and verification. Going back to circuit design, OKAD will never be able to design a complex digital chip on a state-of-the-art process. It's really nothing more than a simplistic EDA toolchain that would only work on simplistic circuits and fabrication processes. A modern EDA toolchain from e.g. Cadence is many orders of magnitude more complex.
  - nortiero 9y ago
    And ?
    - Cyph0n 9y ago
      TL;DR Not really as impressive as it was made out to be.
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        You're entirely missing the point made by Chuck Moore and by extension probably don't understand why his way of looking at programming and the Forth language in particular are a big deal even this long after their invention. This kind of minimalism and stripping things down to their essence is a powerful tool to allow you to focus on what matters rather than at all those things that don't really matter. If you don't actually need 4 GHz chips and billions of transistors to get the job done then why would you? Reliability and simplicity go hand-in-hand.
        Cyph0n 9y ago
        > This kind of minimalism and stripping things down to their essence is a powerful tool to allow you to focus on what matters rather than at all those things that don't really matter. If you don't actually need 4 GHz chips and billions of transistors to get the job done then why would you? I agree entirely. I just wanted to point out that it's not accurate to equate what Chuck designed (i.e., OKAD) to a modern EDA toolchain and technology node. If it works for him, then great!
        jacquesm 9y ago
        Nobody equated that. The time when he made his is decades ago, so obviously nothing from those days compared to a modern EDA toolchain and associated bits and pieces. I think you subconsciously added the 'modern' in there somewhere and then argued against that.
progman 9y ago
> 'm going to need a citation for that. "My VLSI tools take a chip from conception through testing. Perhaps 500 lines of source code. Cadence, Mentor Graphics do the same, more or less. With how much source/object code? – Chuck Moore, the inventor of Forth Source: http://yosefk.com/blog/my-history-with-forth-stack-machines.html http://yosefk.com/blog/my-history-with-forth-stack-machines.... 500 lines are actually possible since Forth words are threaded. That means, any new defined word w can take advantage of all available predefined words. Follwing words can take advantage of w, etc. Forth words are not just simple procedures but they can also comprise new syntax structures. Forth words can be "procedures" or "macros", and both can be mixed freely. Threaded code was the main reason why Forth was so successful in the first years when memory costs were a real issue.

by Cyph0n 9y ago

Avshalom 9y ago

I don't know how much of the usual stack it accounts for or if it specifically was used for the GA144 but they're referring to OKAD, often talked about as in hundreds/thousands of lines of colorforth https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Moore+okad+forth&t=fpas&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Moore+okad+forth&t=fpas&ia=web

Cyph0n 9y ago
Before I put on my cynical hat, I'd like to say that it's pretty impressive stuff for a one-man shop in the 90s. ----- So it seems like OKAD is basically a layout editor, simulator, DRC checker, and GDSII compiler. The simulator uses a very simplistic transistor model that would only work at very old process nodes (>350nm?) due to the low impact of parsitics and leakage. Not even a moderately complex digital chip from the mid-90s could be designed and verified using such a simplistic toolchain. To provide a software analogy, Chuck wrote an assembler for a custom assembly dialect targeting e.g. x86, and then directly used that assembler to build an operating system kernel. Given the absence of "higher-level" constructs, the resulting OS will never be as complex as something like an NT kernel, especially due to the difficulty of testing and verification. Going back to circuit design, OKAD will never be able to design a complex digital chip on a state-of-the-art process. It's really nothing more than a simplistic EDA toolchain that would only work on simplistic circuits and fabrication processes. A modern EDA toolchain from e.g. Cadence is many orders of magnitude more complex.
- nortiero 9y ago
  And ?
  - Cyph0n 9y ago
    TL;DR Not really as impressive as it was made out to be.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      You're entirely missing the point made by Chuck Moore and by extension probably don't understand why his way of looking at programming and the Forth language in particular are a big deal even this long after their invention. This kind of minimalism and stripping things down to their essence is a powerful tool to allow you to focus on what matters rather than at all those things that don't really matter. If you don't actually need 4 GHz chips and billions of transistors to get the job done then why would you? Reliability and simplicity go hand-in-hand.
      - Cyph0n 9y ago
        > This kind of minimalism and stripping things down to their essence is a powerful tool to allow you to focus on what matters rather than at all those things that don't really matter. If you don't actually need 4 GHz chips and billions of transistors to get the job done then why would you? I agree entirely. I just wanted to point out that it's not accurate to equate what Chuck designed (i.e., OKAD) to a modern EDA toolchain and technology node. If it works for him, then great!
        jacquesm 9y ago
        Nobody equated that. The time when he made his is decades ago, so obviously nothing from those days compared to a modern EDA toolchain and associated bits and pieces. I think you subconsciously added the 'modern' in there somewhere and then argued against that.

progman 9y ago

> 'm going to need a citation for that. "My VLSI tools take a chip from conception through testing. Perhaps 500 lines of source code. Cadence, Mentor Graphics do the same, more or less. With how much source/object code? – Chuck Moore, the inventor of Forth Source: http://yosefk.com/blog/my-history-with-forth-stack-machines.html http://yosefk.com/blog/my-history-with-forth-stack-machines.... 500 lines are actually possible since Forth words are threaded. That means, any new defined word w can take advantage of all available predefined words. Follwing words can take advantage of w, etc. Forth words are not just simple procedures but they can also comprise new syntax structures. Forth words can be "procedures" or "macros", and both can be mixed freely. Threaded code was the main reason why Forth was so successful in the first years when memory costs were a real issue.