[Fpga-synth] Starting points?

[Theo Verelst]

Scott Gravenhorst wrote:
> "The making of synthesizers in FPGAs." wrote:
> 
>>My father (a BASIC/Matab guy) likes to joke "a good engineer can 
>>write FORTRAN in any language." I'm sure the HDL's are no 
>>exception. 
> 
> 
> LOL, yeah, I'd say that's true.  I have only "can read it" experience with
> VHDL, i.e., I can translate simple module code from VHDL to Verilog.  I've
> read somewhere that both languages are capable of the same designs.
> 

Taking the freedom of speech human right serious, I´d think that about 
hardware design that issue, lets say the comparability of two logic 
designs, or bisimulation in some contexts (that two design path results 
are logically identical, including a certain interpretation of the 
timing behaviour.

I remember from university (working on a EE PhD for which I achieved the 
level but I didn´t apply for at the end, and which is often not 
extremely desirable in EE circuits) there are good books about the 
issues involved, lets say around the CSP ( Hoare:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicating_sequential_processes )

Wether the processes, logic trees, and connection graphs between the 
languages can correspond could probably be determined theoretically 
using those theoretical languages. Probably asking a kind dude who knows 
his (or her) stuff is easier and more fun, isn´t it.

This risk:
  http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~ravenben/papers/coreos/Hoa81.pdf
about the application power of the theory of a certain language, like 
was an issue with unix in the 70s when streams were invented to work in 
it is not involved currently.

Remembering the work stress when I was involved in designing a what 
should have been complex 3D machine (for which at uni the funds where 
only sufficient when all people on the project would have been very 
capable do-it all logical and theoretical handymen...) I guess much in 
the certain new hardware design circuits (after the people ruled who 
could make the PdPs, the connection machine and very capable missiles 
and complicated video processing algorithms work more than a few decades 
ago) is led by people who´d do good pushing a lot of things forward, and 
not by interested people who made their hobbies into a high ranking 
profession. Certain money circuits currently are probably not for 
nothing in a severe recession even though I´d think in the US most PhDs 
aren´t catholic or funded by the same. I remember they are most 
interested in lets say a given hierarchy which is to be expanded as 
opposed to the ´Engineers are great´ adagium my own grandfather appears 
to have honored!

Regards,

    Theo Verelst

P.S.: I guess formulas and fortran (and sound synthesis) can be fun:
    http://www.theover.org/Max/