5 ms·
It being "hard" shouldn't give them a pass on quality control. From the early Project Navigator to ISE to Vivado, Xilinx tools are buggy, poorly documented, and
by bhb916 13y ago
It being "hard" shouldn't give them a pass on quality control. From the early Project Navigator to ISE to Vivado, Xilinx tools are buggy, poorly documented, and completely unintuitive. Yet, they're still better than Altera's.
- alok-g 13y agoI had never used Altera. It's sad to hear that it is even worse!
- bhb916 13y agoI moved one of our smaller projects over to Altera because they were first to 28nm plus the local Altera team was willing to help out with porting any device-specific code. I was very disappointed with the tools. It's worth a write-up all on it's own, but my staff struggled through the tooling which consumed most of their time.
- alok-g 13y agoJust asking, not questioning: Are you sure they would not have similarly struggled if they were pros in Altera and were moving to Xilinx? An issue with counter-intuitive and buggy tools is exactly that you get used to them, your mind slowly forgets how messy a design the tools have, and now everything else seems counter-intuitive.
- bhb916 13y agoThat's a good question. It's almost impossible to tell objectively. I would say that the Altera tools felt more like circa 2007 Xilinx Tools. They lacked quality control AND maturity. This is all very subjective, though.
- djcapelis 13y agoUgh. I remember 2007 Xilinx tools and I wouldn't wish them on anyone. I was so surprised when I started doing FPGA work again and found even the old ISE versions I'm using (2010/2011-ish) are so much better! I have access to newer software, but the designs I'm working with don't import correctly into them. :-P