In the days when software wasn't patentable and hardware was, the distinction was important. There were stories about the patent for virtual memory, being both hardware and software and the problems trying to patent it.
Yes, the distinction is only important to lawyers.
-- glen
Hi Philip,
It's not a client, it's a physicist who used an FPGA once (or twice)...and knows more than I do about electrical engineering and FPGAs. If that is true, perhaps I ought to open a hot dog stand ;-)
Well, it's not really an argument if you aready know the right answers. Yours were pretty much the same as mine. No surprise there ;-)
I think you missed this "interesting" statement though:
The "are used as inputs to these logic gates in the silicon wafer" part...
and one comment on this:
"Since the devices are volatile, and infinitely re-programmable, just like a CPU, no physical modification of the internal wires occurs."
Though true, there is a logical modification to the "internal wires", as in, the PIPs get programmed to route the internal signals.
Regards,
Austin
Yeah Austin, get your homework done and don't make me tell you again! ;)
Good grief, Rick...I haven't done *real* homework in near 30 years!
Regards,
Austin
I'll try to put some light here! The problem arises from using the same name for different things.
a) Semiconductor CHIPS: FPGAs, CPUs, DSPs, ..., are hardware. Try to eat them and you will understand. But please, don't sue me for your broken teeth.
b) Potato CHIPS: software, of course!
c) Rest: Well, the rest is ..., restware. Easy, isn't it?
PS.: Don't forget CHiPs, California Highway Patrol. If someone remember!
Luiz Carlos.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required