> On 2021-02-25, at 13:40, smf <smf_at_null.net> wrote: > > On 25/02/2021 10:50, silverdr_at_wfmh.org.pl wrote: >> I remember our nice discussion about ancient kings (in the quantity of >> one) and their vessels (in the same quantity). For you >> reimplementation of mask-fabricated chips using an FPGA was an "emulation" > > Not only for me, but for the industry as a whole. > [...] It _can_ be. Doesn't mean it necessarily is, etc. Honestly - I see some of your points. If I try to look from the pov of how I think you understand the terminology they completely make sense. The reason I don't subscribe is that the same as before we're not on the same page when it comes to definitions of important terms/their scopes and contexts, like - when emulation stops being one and becomes prototype - when emulation stops being one and becomes real thing - when a "PGA" (like the one originally used for PLA implementation) is the real thing and when not - what constitutes the core functionality/logic and what the supporting infrastructure - probably more And I somehow don't see us finding common frame of reference on those any time soon :-) -- SD!Received on 2021-02-25 17:00:03
Archive generated by hypermail 2.3.0.