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 *