5 ms·

It doesn't. Just because it shares some syntax with C does not make it 'want to be procedural'. I think that comes from the programmers bias from first learning

by gswdh 4y ago

It doesn't. Just because it shares some syntax with C does not make it 'want to be procedural'. I think that comes from the programmers bias from first learning a procedural language. I learnt C then Verilog, I am fluent in Verilog. The mindset for designing digital logic is completely different to programming computers, it literally is a completely different skill. The problem is, people think just because they can type a (procedural) programming language they can program anything that is programmed with a code which is where peoples initial distaste for Verilog and VHDL comes from. When you learn how to do it, I think designing logic is refreshing compared to writing software, there's so much baggage with software.

tsmi 4y ago
I do totally agree with the comment, and even upvoted it, but in some sense an HDL does 'want to be procedural'. For example: Procedure to make brick wall: For brick in wheel-barrow do To brick, apply mortar, place it, pound it with trowel (Apologies to all masons. I think you can tell my training is electrical engineering.) I've thought for some time that the main problem with Verilog is that it looks really close, visually, to C and that gives people the wrong impression.
- bsder 4y ago
  Except that's not how you do it. My go-to example for this is the Carry-skip Adder. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carry-skip_adder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carry-skip_adder) Things are happening simultaneously in time and space. The ripples are happening while the skips are happening. The skips go stable because the ripple goes stable or the carry will skip so the ripple has "extra time" to go stable. This is the simplest add faster than naive ripple carry. Note that it has no clocks. This is a purely combinatoric problem. And most "digital designers" will get it wrong. Hardware design is NOT software design. Good digital designers are always thinking about how to interleave things in time and space like this.

by gswdh 4y ago

tsmi 4y ago

I do totally agree with the comment, and even upvoted it, but in some sense an HDL does 'want to be procedural'. For example: Procedure to make brick wall: For brick in wheel-barrow do To brick, apply mortar, place it, pound it with trowel (Apologies to all masons. I think you can tell my training is electrical engineering.) I've thought for some time that the main problem with Verilog is that it looks really close, visually, to C and that gives people the wrong impression.

bsder 4y ago
Except that's not how you do it. My go-to example for this is the Carry-skip Adder. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carry-skip_adder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carry-skip_adder) Things are happening simultaneously in time and space. The ripples are happening while the skips are happening. The skips go stable because the ripple goes stable or the carry will skip so the ripple has "extra time" to go stable. This is the simplest add faster than naive ripple carry. Note that it has no clocks. This is a purely combinatoric problem. And most "digital designers" will get it wrong. Hardware design is NOT software design. Good digital designers are always thinking about how to interleave things in time and space like this.