3 ms·
Sure the fpga companies don't want anybody to know how to build their software. Building good fpga's is not that hard(if you're intel, or quallcom or any other
by minthd 11y ago
Sure the fpga companies don't want anybody to know how to build their software. Building good fpga's is not that hard(if you're intel, or quallcom or any other of the big guys). But building good, efficient software is very hard, takes decades and tens of thousands of customers designs to run it on.
- diamondman 11y agoWhen you say 'good, efficient software' i wonder if you are talking about Xilinx ISE/Vivado, or any of the tools from their competitors. I can not imagine you are.
- minthd 11y agoHave you noticed anybody else with better software and chips ? no ? maybe because it's extremely hard to to get to the level of ISE and the competitors ?
- ChuckMcM 11y agoWell Quartus isn't bad. It will be interesting to see what Intel does with it. They have a history of open sourcing things other folks don't want to open source (like Graphics Drivers).
- diamondman 11y ago'get to the level' of ISE... I disagree. I do not want to build an IDE. I want an open toolchain, the thing that the ISE interface calls. There is some math in there that takes certain skills to implement, but I know several people who could do it if they had the layout of the chips. MAYBE the reason there are no open toolchains 'on the level' of ISE and competitors is not because Xilinx has some amazing secret sauce and is instead because the whole industry is caustically secretive and horribly anti competition.