Well, I continue to ask myself what the advantage should be, if there are synthesizable subsets for more and more programming languages, to be able to develop hardware with them. The people who absolutely want to use a functional programming language for this can already use e.g. Chisel or SpinalHDL, for example, which are based on Scala. So now there is yet another HDL based on Haskell (don't forget e.g. Bluespec). There are also HDL based on OCaml or ML. But I think it is not wrong to assume that the task of developing error free hardware hasn't become easier hence.
back
2 comments
> So now there is yet another
Clash has been around for a while now.
> if there are synthesizable subsets for more and more programming languages
Haskell is the only language I'm aware of that has semantics approaching those of hardware - in particular, purity and non-strict evaluation are absolutely required to match (or closely approximate) the semantics of digital hardware. (To get you started - bottom is equivalent to X in the HDL simulator nomenclature)
> Chisel or SpinalHDL... HDL based on OCaml or ML
Chisel is a shallow embedding. Not sure about SpinalHDL. Hardcaml is a shallow embedding. Very different approach from Clash, and I prefer Clash's deep/direct embedding approach.