SCscott_s·Jan 20, 2015
Advice to the authors: don't stress syntax, but semantics. People here are getting caught up on the notion that "this syntax is not too different from Verilog/VHDL". But that's not the point; it's not what you say, but what that means. You have created a programming model that software people can understand intuitively, but also easily maps to hardware.
People may get hung up on this because the example on your page is so simple. The equivalent VHDL and Verilog is also relatively simple. A simple example is good, and a comparison is good, but just presenting the differences is not enough. Stress what someone coding in Cx does not have to think about. In other words, what are the abstractions in Cx?
Consider what the equivalent page for C versus assembly would look like for a function that computes some simple arithmetic. Some people may s
Read the rest
ay, "Oh, sure, the assembly has a few more lines because you need to push and pop parameters from the stack, but that's no big deal." And it's not - for one function. What's the big deal is that there are entire concepts - saving existing registers, pushing parameters onto the stack, register management - that C programmers don't need to think about. (Most of the time.)
The code you link to elsewhere in this thread hints to me that there are indeed significant abstractions behind Cx, that make it more than just an alternative syntax to Verilog and VHDL. See: https://github.com/synflow/sha-256/blob/master/SHA256/src/co...