Subject: Re: New vote on SUAVE or Objective VHDL
From: John Michael Williams (jwill@pacbell.net)
Date: Fri Jun 23 2000 - 17:51:40 PDT
Hi Dale.
Dale E. Martin wrote:
>
> John Michael Williams <jwill@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> > My comment was meant to point out that the only "work"
> > the group seems to have been doing was writing
> > computer programs and arguing over which one was the
> > better.
>
> Hi John. I think I understand where you're coming from, but I feel that
> you're a little off target here. I'd like to point out that both groups
> have provided a fair amount of standards type documents - certainly not
> full LRMs but documents that Paul Menchini reviewed and only found
> nominal problems with. Obviously he has a decent idea what a standards
> document should look like.
No. I'm not off target: I'm complaining that there is no target,
just a lot of code circulating in the butts.
Nice that you and others MIGHT have provided documents. I guess it is
unimportant to you whether they are randomly chosen and conflicting
(as are the two or more competing prototypes). No need to decide on
anything, just have fun writing and debugging . . . .
Why is not the group deciding on the documents, and not being
sidetracked into beta-testing programs which, you seem to be saying
below, are NOT up to commercial standards of functionality.
>
> In addition to those documents, there have been many other papers and
> articles written comparing various approaches and their strengths and
> weaknesses. I'm sure Peter and others could provide references for you.
I'm an expert at C++ OO coding, and I know the OO-VHDL "iterature" well
enough to
recognize a slump in progress caused by endless prototyping.
I don't want to read any more random documents or peer documents; I want
to
see some standards activity.
>
> > But the group should have been writing a standards document to help
> > potential users of object-oriented (constructs in) VHDL! Why not
> > rename the group, the "OO-VHDL Compiler Writing Club"?
>
> > Sorry to sound satirical, but what does it take?
>
> The other question I'd like to ask is what good does an LRM document
> alone do?
It fulfills the purpose of this group.
> Give the VHDL LRM to someone who doesn't know VHDL and see if
> they get any sense of what it's about, and what it can do for them. My
> personal view is that they'll get nothing out of such an exercise - they
> would need to see some examples at the very least. A description of how
> to use the language probably would also be useful - how to simulate,
> synthesize, etc. with the language.
If a person can't understand what they are doing without running code
examples, then maybe the material is too complex--or maybe the person
should be doing examples, not standards!
Think of it: For the past year, this group has, in effect, been
granted an IEEE charter to come up with essentially an architectural
document. Instead, you tell me that when the house is done, you will
figure out the floorplan. It's easier on the brain that way.
That's what you are implying. Are you trying to say OO methods
are just for dumb people? Maybe you have a point there, but
I think overcoming that particular handicap is possible. Just
drag some well-intentioned people away from the debugger, or at
least limit theor hours watching debug, and get them thinking
about how OO-VHDL *SHOULD* work, not how a sw engineer has so
far been able to find time to make it run.
>
> > I move that the vote be cancelled as irrelevent to standards activity.
>
> What would you suggest?
>
> > If you insist in a vote between two commercial software projects, then
> > at least let the voters decide WHETHER these two software projects
> > should be occupying their time. Add an alternative, "Neither of the
> > above".
>
> I'd like to hear your concrete objection to either language. I'd also
> would like to know who is commercializing either system? I'm not aware
> of such an effort of SUAVE and I've been somewhat involved in this
> process, although not too much recently. Did I miss some announcement?
Yes: You are missing my motion to provide for a way to
stop coding and start thinking. I'd appreciate a second.
Again, I move that the proposed vote be withdrawn and replaced by
one which provides at least for a choice "neither". If "neither" wins,
we drop ALL reflector discussion of either program until
we have a draft LRM document (or, maybe, chapter of a VHDL document).
>
> > Not to say that the two programs are not of themselves metitorious:
> > It's just that holding votes on them merely further prolongs the term
> > of the (abortion?).
>
> Again, please suggest an alternative before you go off the handle. If
> you feel a vote is inappropriate, start some discussion about
> alternatives to these approaches and see where it goes.
Off what handle? Do you have a handle on the standards document?
My alternative IS ABOVE: NEITHER PROGREAMMING PROJECT should be
further considered until at least a working group has completed work.
But, instead of getting it adopted in the back room, I'd like
it to be voted.
It sounds trite, but you are insisting that now that we have the
cart before the horse, we push harder until it works.
>
> My $0.02 (US ;-))
> Dale
> --
> +---------------------- pgp key available -----------------------+
> | Dale E. Martin | Clifton Labs, Inc. | Senior Computer Engineer |
> | dmartin@clifton-labs.com | http://www.clifton-labs.com |
> +----------------------------------------------------------------+
--
John
jwill@pacbell.net
John Michael Williams
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Jun 23 2000 - 19:14:12 PDT