Talk:SystemVerilog

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Blog section "SystemVerilog vs mixed Verilog/C++"

This entire section reads like a personal blog entry. It should be removed.

-> I entirely agree. This sounds like the screed of a petulant child. I sympathize with the author's point that SystemVerilog's touted advantages are nowhere near as clear as its advocates and the EDA vendors tout - and I work for a consulting company that promotes it. It is debatable whether that point is appropriate to a Wikipedia entry on the topic. But assuming the point is worth making here, the following blatant falsehood betrays the author's lack of objectivity:

"However, it should be noted that anybody skilled enough to write a mixed Verilog/C++ testbench can easily migrate to SystemVerilog environment with less than a day of effort due to the great similarity between the old method of mixed Verilog/C++ and SystemVerilog"

That's just a silly, misinformed statement.

74.12.117.218 (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whence UVM

Odd to have an article on SV, mention VMM and OVM but not mention UVM - perhaps it is merely stale and needs a refresh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SysTom (talk • contribs) 22:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the programming language infobox

The use of this infobox is strange, since SystemVerilog is not a programming language, despite including much of C++ for writing complex testbenches. As such, the characterization that SystemVerilog is a "structured" programming language for design entry is inaccurate and insufficient in capturing the essence of the language. I've raised the same issue at Talk:Verilog#Use of the programming language infobox. AZ1199 (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]