[gothenburg]

What I really wanted was a better explanation of Cx's advantages other than "The syntax is similar to C".

And I'm not sure if you fully understand the difference between a programming language and a hardware description language. Yes, HDL's syntax might be awkward sometimes (whether it's Verilog or VHDL) but I think you are tackling the wrong problems with the wrong way.

Taking the example you gave:

always @(negedge reset_n or posedge clock) begin

  if (~reset_n) begin

    count <= 4'b0;

    FSM <= init;

  end else begin

    case (FSM)

      init: begin

        if (count != 4'h8) begin

          count <= count + 1;

          FSM <= init;

        end else

          FSM <= next_state;

     end

   next_state: // blah

  end
  
 end

end

Can you point exactly what do you think it's wrong with this syntax? And don't compare it with a while() cycle in C, because this is a totally different thing. I'm not saying that this is the perfect way of doing things but there are good reasons why Verilog ended up this way.

I'm really scared with this whole "Hardware design for software developers" thing. Hardware design is very complex and if you aren't careful with what you write, you might end with problems like: CDC, synthesis tools mistaking flip-flops with latches, problems with the insertion of scan chain, and so on.

And by the way, where do you define your clocks in Cx?

[nsiret]

In short, I would say.

(Main) advantages: - The Cx syntax is a lot easier to learn/debug than VHDL and Verilog (and SystemVerilog, and SystemC) - Cx is easier to use for making more complex systems (it's a structured language with Control structures, Subroutines, blocks, etc). - Being easier to use, Cx allows you to write programs faster. Generally these programs are also easier to debug and easier to maintain. Furthermore, it's easier to manage large, complex programs in Cx. - When you do need to have a really low level of abstraction, you can use VHDL/Verilog and call it in Cx

We are here to help people doing better hardware, and to open it to a majority of engineers so I don't think that fully understanding the difference (...) really matters.

Nothing is wrong with the syntax however it's too tedious and complex. In this simple example it's ok but the more larger the FSM the more complexity to handle.

How is this a different thing? The init is the same as a loop (n = 0; n < 5; n++) in software ... It's just more complex to write. I would rather say that you can do the same in C using a switch case statement... but who will code C that way today?

Yes it is complex and error probing, and that is precisely why it is our duty to make it more simple. Handling and preventing the problems is the job of the compiler so hardware makers can focus on what's matter not on these kinds of complexities.

Clocks (and resets) can be either implicit or explicit. By default you only have one clock and reset, and if you need more you can explicit them - http://cx-lang.org/documentation/properties