Steve Schulz, president and CEO of the Si2 standards organization, has just published a blog entry titled “If not ‘EDA360’, then what?” on the Chip Design Magazine Web site. Schulz’ question is meant to be one of terminology versus intent. I spoke to him about his blog and we found ourselves in violent agreement. All of the major EDA companies are aligned along EDA360 principles. They’re all talking about hardware/software integration as a guiding and controlling force in the development of complex systems and how architectural-level tradeoffs at the hardware-software level guide the development of the underlying silicon. Even so, though all the EDA companies agree on the issues, they have yet to agree on the terminology.
When Cadence launched the EDA360 initiative with a vision and White Paper a year ago, CMO John Bruggeman stated that the term “EDA360” wasn’t meant to be a Cadence-specific term. It was a label to be used by anyone to refer to the big problems associated with hardware/software development and integration in an age where software “apps” increasingly shape how products are conceived, developed, and fielded.
Schulz’ blog entry asks “Regardless of the company that coined “EDA360″, are the principles well aligned with the trends described above?” Events over the past year confirm over and over again that the principles described in the original EDA360 vision paper are indeed well aligned with real trends and that there is a general buy-in by everyone in the EDA community. It’s just that term that seems to stick in the throat.
Then, as Schulz asks, “So, if not ‘EDA360’, then what?”
As William Shakespeare would say, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.”