4 ms·
If you suggest using those tools for most industry semiconductor work you’ll be laughed out of the room. I wish it wasn’t the case, but these tools aren’t good
by artisanspam 4y ago
If you suggest using those tools for most industry semiconductor work you’ll be laughed out of the room. I wish it wasn’t the case, but these tools aren’t good enough for most industry use cases.
- jdougan 4y agoI know almost nothing about this area. Just how much effort do you think it would take to get these tools to "good enough but no more"/MVP? Days/Weeks/Months/Years/Decades etc.?
- artisanspam 4y agoAside from what was already mentioned in another comment, one of the largest things lacking in this area is not having dedicated support. These tools are maintained by only a few individuals, and if you need a feature of bug fix, you either need to implement it yourself or wait a long time for a fix. If you need a feature or bug fix from Cadence, Synopsys, or Mentor, I've usually had releases that fix the issue within a week or two. The article seems to imply that EDA vendors contributing to a common open source project is where EDA ought to go moving forward. That's a step in the right direction because it'd fix this support issue I mention. But it probably won't fix the cost issue.
- prbs23 4y agoFrom what I have seen of both the open source and commercial EDA software, I think it would take a well funded team somewhere around 4 years of development to catch up with the current state of the art. If we're talking about EDA emulation hardware, probably more like 6 years, since these usually have custom Basics designed for them. Maybe you could cut a year off of those and still have something that is good enough but not state of the art.