Talk:Electronic design automation

Electronics High‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Who owns CADSTAR

Who owns CADSTAR?--Light current 21:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a product of Zuken Solutions, who I just made a web page for. The Cadstar page should link to Zuken Solutions. LouScheffer 21:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added the refernce to the Cadstar page. LouScheffer 22:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. I thought it was a RACAL product!--Light current 22:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider adding Aldec to the list of companies? They are a prominent tool when it comes to FPGA design.

Sure, go ahead and add them. FPGA design is certainly EDA. LouScheffer 00:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This usage probably originates...

Either it originates, or it doesn't. We shouldn't make vague statements like this. Either remove the "probably" or the whole sentence. 84.190.12.162 20:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:SynopsysLogo.GIF

Image:SynopsysLogo.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Zuken small2.gif

Image:Zuken small2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added a fair-use rationale. LouScheffer (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Mentor logo.png

Image:Mentor logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:MagmaDALogo.gif

The image Image:MagmaDALogo.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

Image:Mentor PADS PCB Layout.PNG

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Software neutral screen-shots

It should be possible to adopt a more neutral set of screen-shots for this article. The ones in use here are basically the same as those on the Kicad article, and it would seem fair to offer representation to other software, both open-source and commercial.

Alternatively, would it be possible to convey the concepts involved, or show the screen-shots without citing specific software. We wouldn't necessarily need to show the entire screen to convey the desired concepts, thereby cutting down this page's potential use as advertising space.

For full disclosure, I'm a gEDA developer (one of many open-source EDA suites), and am concerned that this root article should remain neutral (or give fair representation to all packages). It would be more appropriate to link to the software specific articles for gEDA, Kicad and others which would of course be free to promote that software via fully captioned screen-shots.

Pcjc2 (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of EeSof division of Agilent to Market Capital table

How was the Market cap figure for EeSof division of Agilent calculated? Is this number publicly available, and if so where? Otherwise I it is better to drop it from the Market Cap table and reference it only with a comment. 149.117.23.28 (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lengauer 1990, not 1997

I happen to be doing a research paper using Lengauer's book right now, and there is definitely no edition published in 1997. It's 1990. I'm going to change it right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.118.178.62 (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate info. regarding early CAD systems for IC design

With Regard to: 1981 marks the beginning of EDA as an industry. For many years, the larger electronic companies, such as Hewlett Packard, Tektronix, and Intel, had pursued EDA internally. In 1981, managers and developers spun out of these companies to concentrate on EDA as a business. Daisy Systems, Mentor Graphics, and Valid Logic Systems were all founded around this time, and collectively referred to as DMV.

The beginning of EDA preceeded 1981 by a few years. IC Design CAD systems were available in the late 70's from Applicon (870/860), Calma (GDS 1) and Computervision (I and II). I personally worked for Applicon on the IC design system named "860" - PDP-11 based - starting in 1979. SO 1981 was a 2nd generation EDA era - not the beginning by any means. And Intel was our biggest customer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.209.97 (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abbr. expansion?

After introduction of the abbreviation, EDA, it is used throughout. Shouldn't EDA be expanded (as in most other Wikipedia articles)? --Mortense (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mortense: It only needs to be expanded on the first use, with the abbreviation after it in parentheses. After that the abbreviation can be used on its own. Normally the abbreviation is used for any subsequent mention. The relevant MoS entries are WP:ACRO and Manual of Style#Acronyms.

he used electronic design automation (EDA) software to design the schematic and the layout of the circuit board, at the first mention of electronic design automation; and

he exported the finished design from the EDA software in Gerber format ready for manufacturing, at a subsequent mention.

I'd add that if an article has many lengthy sections you can give a definition again (on the principle that a reader might have forgotten what a particular acronym stands for by the time he's read that far down). Whether and when to do so is a matter of editorial judgement. --91.125.29.135 (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electronic design automation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150802073506/http://www.edac.org/industry to http://www.edac.org/industry

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged for copyedit

This article is not bad for basic coverage, but the language is loose and informal, and sometimes strays into vague, cryptic, or erratic. I believe if the language was more crisp, the structure would soon also become more coherent.

I was blowing off the many small problems until I reached this fragment:

Formal verification, also model checking: attempts to prove, by mathematical methods, that the system has certain desired properties, and that certain undesired effects (such as deadlock) cannot occur.

With a "certain" amount of additional effort, that nasty word could be eliminated here.

Note that I flout the policy about flag and run, so I'm in a state of sin here, and anyone who wishes to invoke policy can remove the flag on that basis, no questions asked.

But this article does need a major copyedit, whether I stick around, or not. — MaxEnt 12:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]