ESL 2.0 = EDA 4.0

Can't get to subsequent pages because of the Cadence transition page.
Please lose the Cadence advertising. Let me see the whole article.
Call me when it's fixed.
Ken Simone
(937) 684-2734

The article is a bit of a mixed bag of things. It contains some extremely thought provoking comments and some fairly down beat views. What seems very surprising to me is the absence of any discussion of UML. UML expresses concurrency very well and has (at least some level of) acceptance in the software engineering world. Where are the UML + SystemC/SystemVerilog tools? Why isn't anyone talking about UML?

This aricle is very interesting showing the difficulty of a common definition and or understanding of the word ESL because of the various interests or knowledge of the different people behind the statements.
In my view we need to define ESL as a global target, without technical references today because most of them will be 80 wrong versus the final implementation and the sum of the remaining 20 will be the practical way to go.
For me, ESL is the path from "SW Application platforms" to RTL specs with architectural contraints on implementation versus application (speed, power consumption, manufacturability and dependability)
Cordially.
Jo Borel