[e7h4nz]

The Delta Cycle logic is actually quite similar to functional reactive programming. It separates how a value changes from when a process responds to that change.

VHDL had this figured out as early as 1987. I spent many years writing Verilog test benches and chasing numerous race conditions; those types of bugs simply don't exist in VHDL.

The Verilog rules—using non-blocking assignments for sequential logic and blocking assignments for combinational logic—fail as soon as the scenario becomes slightly complex. Verilog is suitable when you already have the circuit in your head and just need to write it down quickly. In contrast, VHDL forces you to think about concurrent processes in the correct way. While the former is faster to write, the latter is the correct approach.

Even though SystemVerilog added some patches, the underlying execution model still has inherent race conditions.

[tverbeure]

I used to be a huge VHDL proponent, talk about the delta cycle stuff, give VHDL classes at work to new college grads and such. And then I moved to the West Coast and was forced to start using Verilog.

And in the 21 years since, I’ve never once ran into an actual simulation determinism issues.

It’s not bad to have a strict simulation model, but if some very basic coding style rules are followed (which everybody does), it’s just not a problem.

I don’t agree at all with the statement that Verilog fails when things become too complex. The world’s most complex chips are built with it. If there were ever a slight chance that chips couldn’t be designed reliably with it, that could never be the case.

Anyway, not really relevant, but this all reminds me of the famous Verilog vs VHDL contest of 1997: https://danluu.com/verilog-vs-vhdl/

[e7h4nz]

On a practical level, you're right, most of my team's work is done in Verilog.

That being said, I still have a preference for the VHDL simulation model. A design that builds correctness directly into the language structure is inherently more elegant than one that relies on coding conventions to constrain behavior.

[tverbeure]

My memory is definitely rusty on this, but you can easily construct cases where the VHDL delta cycle model creates problems where it doesn’t for Verilog.

I remember inserting clock signal assignments in VHDL to get a balanced delta cycle clock tree. In Verilog, that all simply gets flattened.

I can describe the VHDL delta cycle model pretty well, and I can’t for Verilog, yet the Verilog model has given me less issues in practice

As for elegance: I can’t stand the verboseness of VHDL anymore. :-)

[y1n0]

Reassigning clocks to another signal name will quickly get you into trouble in ways the just don’t happen on real hardware.

[tverbeure]

Have you heard about clock buffers and hold violations?

[y1n0]

No, is that the latest craze?

[JoachimS]

The question for me is, where do I catch, describe the physical reality the model describes? A simulation model can be very elegant. But does it represent how physical things really behave? Can we even expect to do that at RTL, or further down the design flow? As the name suggest, we are talking about transferring data between registers. In the RTL that is what I can expect to describe.

At the end of the day, what I write will become an electrical circuit - in a FPGA or an ASIC (or both), having the complex exact modelling with wire delays, capacitance, cross talk, cell behavior too early makes it impossibly to simulate fast enough to iterate. So then we need to have a more idealized world, but keeping in mind that (1) it is an idealized world and (2) sooner or later the model will be the rubber on the road.

To me, Verilog and SystemVerilog allow me to do this efficiently. Warts and all.

Oh, and also, where in my toolchain is my VHDL model translated/transformed into Verilog? How good is that translation? How much does the dual licensing cost.

Things like mixed language simulation, formal verification between a verilog netlist and RTL in Verilog, mapping to cell libraries in Verilog. Integration of IP cores written in SystemVerilog with your model?

Are the tools for VHDL as well tested as with code in Verilog? How big is the VHDL team at the tool vendor, library vendor, IP vendor, fab vendor compared to the Verilog, SV team? Can I expect the same support as a VHDL user as for Verilog? How much money does a vendor earn from VHDL customers compared to Verilog, SV? How easy is it to find employees with VHDL experience?

VHDL may be a very nice language for simulation. But the engineering, business side is messy. And dev time, money can't be ignored. Getting things as fast and cheap as possibly still meeting a lot of functional, business requirements is what we as engineers are responsible for. Does VHDL make that easier or not?

[tverbeure]

> where in my toolchain is my VHDL model translated/transformed into Verilog?

It's not? Why would it?

As much as I like Verilog, VHDL is a first class RTL language just like Verilog. I've done plenty of chips that contain both VHDL and Verilog. They both translate directly to gate level.

These days, most EDA tools use Verific parser and elaborator front-ends. The specific tool magic happens after that and that API is language agnostic.

> How easy is it to find employees with VHDL experience?

On the East Coast and in Europe: much easier than finding employees with Verilog experience. (At least that was the case 20 years ago, I have no clue how it is today.)

One thing that has changed a lot is that SystemVerilog is now the general language of choice for verification, which helps give (System)Verilog an edge for RTL design too.

[JoachimS]

Involved in FPGA and ASIC projects since 1997. Predominantly in Europe, nowadays more Asia and some in the US. Since ~2010 I have only seen VHDL in small chops targeting only FPGAs, and in government-heavy projects like defence and space. Nowadays these are also by and large SV. The ratio is something like one in VHDL for 20 Verilog, SV projects. They teach VHDL at universities, and then ppl get to experience SV as soon as they enter the market.

Typical issues are still as given before. Many small IP vendors, esp for communication, networking are using and understand, support only SV. I agree on SV for verification is a big driver.

[novachen]

the geographic constraint is probably the real answer to "which is better" for most people. you learn what your team uses, what your local jobs demand. theoretical elegance matters less than "can i get hired next month"

[Joel_Mckay]

Over the years I have run Altera, Lattice, and Xilinx... and almost all reasonably complex projects were always done in Verilog. If I recall Xilinx fully integrated its Synopsys export workflow a few years back, but not sure where that went after the mergers.

The Amaranth HDL python project does look fun =3

https://github.com/amaranth-lang/amaranth

[formerly_proven]

This actually sounds a bit like a C/C++ argument. Roughly: Yes, you can easily write incorrect code but when some basic coding conventions are followed, UAF/double free/buffer overflows/... are just not a problem. After all, some of the world's most complex software is built with C / C++. If you couldn't write software reliably with C / C++, that could never be the case.

I.e. just because teams manage to do something with a tool does not mean the tool didn't impede (or vice versa, enable) the result. It just says that it's possible. A qualitative comparison with other tools cannot be established on that basis.

[Joel_Mckay]

There are folks trying to make HDL easier, and vendor neutral. Not sure why people were upset by mentioning the project...

https://github.com/amaranth-lang/amaranth

While VHDL makes a fun academic toy language, it has always been Verilog in the commercial settings. Both languages can develop hard to trace bugs when the optimizer decides to simply remove things it thinks are unused. =3

[rzerowan]

How does this compare to chisel [1] , i never could get around the whole scala tooling - seemed a bit over the top. Though i guess it is a bit more mature and probably more enterprisey

[1]https://github.com/chipsalliance/chisel

[Joel_Mckay]

> i never could get around the whole scala tooling

scala is popular in places like Alphabet, that apparently allow go & scala projects in production.

However, I agree while scala is very powerful in some ways, it just doesn't have a fun aesthetic. If one has to go spelunking for scalable hardware accelerators, a vendors linux DMA llvm C/C++ API is probably less fragile.

For my simple projects, one zynq 7020 per node is way more than we should ever need. =3

[tverbeure]

> While VHDL makes a fun academic toy language, ...

I spent the first half of my career working at some of the largest companies at the time on huge communication ASICs that were all written in VHDL, there was no Verilog in sight.

As much as I prefer to write Verilog now, VHDL is without question a more robust and better specified language, with features that Verilog only gained a decade later through SystemVerilog.

There's a reason why almost all major EDA tool support VHDL just as well as Verilog.

[Joel_Mckay]

Note, amaranth supports both VHDL and Verilog language targets.

Cheers =3

[nsteel]

I disagree. We've produced numerous complex chips with VHDL over the last 30 years. Most of the vendor models we have to integrate with are Verilog, so perhaps it is more popular, but that's no problem for us. We've found plenty of bugs for both VHDL and Verilog in the commercial tooling we use, neither is particularly worse (providing you're happy to steer clear of the more recent VHDL language features).

[oelang]

VHDL still dominates in medical, military, avionics, space etc. and it's generally considered the safer RTL language, any industry that requires functional safety seems to prefer it.

It's also the most used language for FPGA in Europe but that's probably mostly cultural.

[thesz]

  > The Delta Cycle logic is actually quite similar to functional reactive programming. It separates how a value changes from when a process responds to that change.

This is what I use when I play with hardware simulation in Haskell:

  type S a = [a]

  register :: a -> S a -> S a
  register a0 as = a0:as

  -- combinational logic can be represented as typical pure
  -- functions and then glued into "circuits" with register's
  -- and map/zip/unzip functions.

This thing also separates externally visible events recorded in the (infinite) list of values from externally unobservable pure (combinational) logic. But, one can test combinational logic separately, with property based testing, etc.

[lifis]

I don't understand this: isn't the thing in the article only relevant for software simulations, while in hardware ordering is arbitrary like in Verilog, or at least dependent on wire lengths that are not specified in HDL? (unless you delay the effect to the next clock update, which it seems to me will work the same in all HDLs and targets).

And afaik HDLs are almost exclusively used for hardware synthesis, never seen any software written in those languages.

So it doesn't seem important at all. In fact, for software simulation of hardware you'd want the simulation to randomly choose anything possible in hardware, so the Verilog approach seems correct.

[oelang]

It's important to have deterministic simulations and semantics that you can reliably reason about. Both VHDL and SystemVerilog offer this to some extent, but in the case of (System)Verilog the order of value updates is not as strictly enforced. In practice, this means that if you switch to another or a newer simulator, suddenly your testbenches will fail. The simulator vendors love this of course. This hidden cost is underestimated.

No sane hardware engineer would want randomness in their simulation unless they get to control it.