I don't mean to belittle your exploration, but are you sure it's an apples-to-apples comparison? This suggests to me that it isn't:

> it seems like hardware engineers have a fetish for all-encompassing painful vendor specific IDEs

Hardware engineers feel pain just like you do. The reason why they put up with those awful software suites is because they have features they need that aren't available elsewhere. In particular, they interface with IP blocks and hard blocks, including at a debug + simulation level. Those tend to evolve quickly and last time I looked -- which admittedly was a while ago -- the open source FPGA tooling pretty much completely ignored them, even though they're critical to commercial development.

If you are content to live without gigabit transceivers, PCIe controllers, DRAM controllers, embedded ARM cores, and so on, I suspect it would be relatively easy to use the open source tooling, but you would only be able to address a small fraction of FPGA applications.

Vivado ships all kinds of "IP" for those things, yes. And once you get past the GUI wizards, drag and drop boxes and lines, and Tcl scripts you find in the end it's just a library of Verilog, all mangled to the point of illegibility.

I wasn't talking about open sourcing. I accept we won't have open source DRAM controllers and the like from them. I understand the licensing restrictions. I just don't like how they force all this stuff to be gatewayed through their baroque and over complicated GUI tools.

I prefer tools that are scriptable, that can work with the build system of my choice, that work properly with source control (imagine that!), where you have your choice of editor rather than having their garbage one rammed down your throat, where there's wizbang features like reformatting and auto-indentation... Hell, even refactoring.

Vivado and Quartus just get in the way. There's no reason to tie all the stuff you're talking about into an integrated tool. They could just ship libraries.

Fusesoc does in fact try to make them behave this way. But you can tell it's a bit of a war to make it happen.

Well yes, they shouldn't cram the awful GUI tools down HW engineers' throats, but they do.

I'm glad Fusesoc is fighting the good fight and I'm glad you're fighting the good fight, but as you point out, it's definitely a fight. It was hardly fair to call the desire to avoid said fight a "fetish."

I can only assume hardware engineers are asking for this kind of tooling, because I can't imagine why companies would be spending the enormous development effort on them and then giving them away for free if they weren't being asked for?

So many things that could be done in a programatic, testable, declarative, scriptable, repeatable way are done with futzy GUI tools in hardware land. Schematic design _could_ be a matter of declaring components, buses, etc. and letting the tool produce something (and then manually manipulate the visual layout if necessary) ; I mean you could literally describe your board using something similar to Verilog and get the tool to produce the schematic for you... we have these kinds of powers in the 21st century -- Instead it's futz with tools that are vaguely Illustrator-esque, find that half your connection points are not actually connected, etc. Why do people want to suffer like this?

Want to use a DRAM controller in Vivado? Find the wizard, enter into 10 text boxes... and if you're lucky you can find the Tcl scripts it generated and in the future just write your Tcl script... but they certainly won't make it easy.

Vivado project in source control? You're going to jump through hoops for that.

I want hardware engineers to demand better.

> the open source FPGA tooling pretty much completely ignored them, even though they're critical to commercial development.

"ignored" as in the vendors aren't cooperating with the developers of the open source tools? What the opensource tools are doing is hard enough as is. When you consider how fragmented FPGA chips are it's difficult to support a wide variety of them even if you wanted.

I'm not blaming the open source devs at all. I admire them greatly. Unfortunately, it's one thing to admire someone greatly and quite another to believe they have a compelling offering.

Please then explain why is still no standardized synthesizable subset for verilog yet? Even C/C++ at its worst was never this absurd.

LLVM folks have actually just started on such tooling: CIRCT. With Chris Lattner at the helm, and industry players like Xilinx and Intel seemingly on board.

Agreed. I never thought the mental leap to Verilog was a big hurdle. It's just C-like syntax with some new constructs around signaling and parallelism. I found this interesting rather than foreboding.

The main challenge I had was compilation time. It can sometimes take overnight to compile a simple application if there's a lot of nested looping, only to have it run out of gates. This can be a royal pain.

I'd expect most HPC scenarios would have lots of nested looping, and probably memory accesses, and thus have to spend a lot of time writing state machines to get around gate count limitations and wait for memory responses, at which point you're basically designing a 200 MHz CPU.

So I don't see it as being very useful for general purpose acceleration, but could be a good CPU offload for some very specific use cases that are more bit-banging than computing. Azure accelerates all its networking via FPGA, which seems like the ideal use case.

There's no such thing as a "loop" on an FPGA. If you declare a loop in Verilog, the synthesizer allocates one set of gates per iteration. That's probably why your runs take all night.

HLS notwithstanding, you don't use traditional control structures to tell an FPGA what to do. You use clocked FSMs and asynchronous expressions to tell it what to be.

Right. But for HPC, loops (in Verilog) will be the norm, to squeeze out as much from each clock tick as possible. Running everything as discrete steps in a FSM would defeat the purpose.