Xref: utzoo comp.lsi.cad:62 sci.electronics:4380
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!chinet!mcdchg!nud!dover!waters
From: waters@dover.uucp (Mike Waters)
Newsgroups: comp.lsi.cad,sci.electronics
Subject: Re: CAD for ASIC's, PLD's, PAL's and PCB's
Summary: Need for interfaces
Keywords: DASH, ABEL, PCAD, CUPL, PADS, EDIF
Message-ID: <572@dover.uucp>
Date: 4 Dec 88 03:48:42 GMT
References: <743@husc6.harvard.edu> <1054@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM>
Reply-To: waters@dover.UUCP (Mike Waters)
Organization: Motorola CAD Mesa, AZ {dover}
Lines: 57

In article <1054@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM> lee@toad.Data-IO.COM () writes:
>In article <743@husc6.harvard.edu> kiely@lownlab.harvard.edu (James P. Kiely) writes:
>>I am planning to purchase a CAD system for designing programmable
[stuff about various features of CAD systems deleted ]
>
>>but...
>>I want to be able to use the same package for Printed Circuit Board
>>layout.  DataIO/Futurenet recent dropped their PCB package so if I
>>go with them I could use DASH for schematic capture but I would have
>>to interface it with some other PCB package.  This may seem easy but
>>back-annotation of chip and gate swaps can become a nightmare.

[stability of vendors in this business ]

>>and I am a little wary about the fact that CUPL has changed ownership
>>twice in the last two years.  I have also been informed by a relatively
>>unreliable source that CUPL will not support devices with more than
>>1200 gates.

>>schematic capture and PCB layout& router package and is much cheaper
>>than PCAD.  But it has now direct interface with any programmable
>>logic chip design package.
>>
>>Would I be best off with PADS and some interface to ABEL?
>>Or is it that important to have a single intergated system?
>>
>
>I would like to hear responses from the users on this too.  What
>demand for such interface is there?  Should we pay attention to this?
>
THis problem of interfaces is precisely why interfaces such as EDIF
were created! 
You mentioned:
	a) what if the vendor goes away?
	b) vendor a does ... vendor b does ...   but I need both!
	c) an interface from a to b doesn't exist and there doesn't seem
	to be the deamnd ($$$) to create one.

In addition, you (and we) need such things as archival capability - can my
199x CAD system read this data? Who knows!

Anyway the idea was to create a single standard which was published as EDIF
V 2 0 0. It is not cheap, needs extensions, and has quite a few shortcomings
but it IS here and IS being used.

    For more information write:
        EDIF User Group
        2222 South Dobson Rd.
	Mesa, AZ 85202

ask for information. (Please don't phone the sectretary is a volunteer!)

-- 
Mike Waters    (for your EDIFication)   *
Motorola CAD Group                      *    Witty remark goes *HERE*
Mesa, AZ   ...!sun!sunburn!dover!waters *
          OR   moto@cad.Berkley.EDU     *