MootWoop

9 ms·

1. 31.▲
   by MootWoop 12y ago

   Thanks for your feedback and encouragement! I'll try to shine some light on Cx. This comment has become a bit of a rant as a consequence, I hope you'll forgive me :) Cx is not so much C-based as C-like, and the difference is subtl
2. 32.▲
   by MootWoop 12y ago

   Yes I'm the author, and no problem :-) If you find HDLs awful, I'd be curious to know what you think of our language, Cx. Maybe we can continue this conversation somewhere else?
3. 33.▲
   by MootWoop 12y ago

   Just to clarify, the diagrams on that page are actually made with Synplify from the generated HDL. As a matter of fact, I agree with you, and we do think that visualization is important. In our tool we have two views: if you're in a ta
4. 34.▲
   by MootWoop 12y ago

   exactly, and there are some open-source hardware designs (on sites like OpenCores), but the problem is that with existing hardware description languages very few people are able to reuse and contribute to these. This is why we've creat
5. 35.▲
   by MootWoop 12y ago

   You're right, you only consider designing an ASIC if it's guaranteed to be more interesting than other options. Note that the capital and risk are not so high if you use an older, proven technology (like 90nm) which should be more
6. 36.▲
   by MootWoop 12y ago

   I'm not an expert on power optimization, and I don't know how this is done in micro-controllers. But I would think that the hardware clock would be implemented using integrated analog components (capacitor + resistor circuit) rath
7. 37.▲
   by MootWoop 12y ago

   Thanks for the link, indeed it looks quite technical and very complete on the subject. Truth be told I'm far from an expert on power, hence the mistake :-)
8. 38.▲
   Integrated Circuit design for the IoT(blog.synflow.com)

   47 points by MootWoop 12y ago|28 comments
9. 39.▲
   Hardware acceleration may be more interesting than you think(blog.synflow.com)

   3 points by MootWoop 12y ago|0 comments
10. 40.▲
    by MootWoop 12y ago

    I think you could. Contrary to most comments on this page, I do think that you should be able to write high-level code with "if" and "while" and have the compiler generate the hardware for you. Actually, that's what
11. 41.▲
    by MootWoop 12y ago

    You're welcome :-) Indeed I was a bit surprised by some hostile comments, yet they do make good points. I never thought that the post would be posted on Hacker News, next time I'll take that into account ^^ Thanks for the links, I
12. 42.▲
    by MootWoop 12y ago

    I would add that as a matter of fact Haskell seems to me like a much better starting point to create efficient hardware, especially because side effects are well isolated, compared to C/C++ and others. But then probably over 90% of peo
13. 43.▲
    by MootWoop 12y ago

    > You could provide a simplified [STL] Yes, and what if they use Boost? What I was trying to show here was that even a small amount of C++ code can be actually very complex, and that makes it impossible to transform to efficient hardware
14. 44.▲
    by MootWoop 12y ago

    > If you're trying to translate an arbitrary high level program into hardware, that's gonna be a pain in the ass. What I'm trying to show in this post (and obviously I failed, sorry!) is that transforming a program written
15. 45.▲
    by MootWoop 12y ago

    Well I did not want to promote C~ that much in that article :-) (there is not even a reference in the post). And yes the post is a bit simplistic, but I wrote this in response to hardware designers who believed that any sequential code (mos
16. 46.▲
    The semiconductor industry's fear of change – and its cost(synflow.com)

    1 points by MootWoop 12y ago|0 comments