Editorial

Integrated System Design, the Readers, and the Vendors Our objective is to present the experiences and views of our readers fairly and without bias. by Jonah McLeod

As you must have noticed, we've been running a series on users' views of design tools found in a typical deep-submicron ASIC flow, with the third and final part appearing this month (p. 24). The articles provide a forum for readers to relate their experience with the major commercial tools used in this flow. Our objective is to give you unbiased views of the capability of those tools. In fact, that's the larger objective of Integrated System Design: to provide information on design methodology written from your point of view.

As you might imagine, giving users freedom to describe their experience with design tools and methodologies often produces both favorable and unfavorable comments. Anyone who has read any article written by John Cooley can understand that tool vendors might not approve of, or agree with, what we publish. That's their right, but it's our right--and our responsibility to you--to publish such comments. On the other hand, it's also our responsibility to report the results fairly, accurately, and without bias, and we believe we do that.

Because trade publications are typically free, readers view them as less objective than, say, a news magazine that readers pay to receive. In truth, trade publications do rely entirely on advertising sales (and some peripheral activities) for support and a profit. The natural inclination is to believe that they serve the advertisers first and the readers second.

I want to dispel that notion generally, and particularly for ISD . If we publish only what our advertisers tell us to print, we provide no more value to you than what's available on the advertisers' Web sites, in their ads, or in the tons of marketing literature they provide.

Covering the complex topic of IC design, we must provide information that you can't receive from the vendors. That information has to come from designers who are willing to share their experience and knowledge with other designers.

We've received complaints from advertisers taking issue with the way in which our authors describe the shortcomings of their products. Because we take pains to ensure the accuracy and fairness of what we publish, we gladly accept those complaints. Only by being an advocate for unbiased expression can we successfully create a forum that serves you.

As we near the end of 1997, our steadfast adherence to this position continues to be rewarded. Not only has Integrated System Design flourished, but we are launching a second magazine, Silicon Strategies , devoted to the topic of intellectual property. It's based on a supplement called Virtual Chip Design that appeared four times in 1997 and was sent to a sample of ISD's readers. Silicon Strategies debuts next month.

Although we've been successful, we aren't perfect. (Of course, nothing is.) We do make mistakes: sometimes small ones; sometimes, unfortunately, big ones. In the November issue, in my article "Deep Submicron Drives a Shift in IC Design Methodolgy" in the Electronics Journal supplement, I made a very big one. On page 7, I quoted Gary Smith, principle analyst at Dataquest, as making a criticism of Chrysalis Symbolic Design's Design Verifyer and predicting a poor future for the tool. Smith didn't say anything like that, nor does he hold those views. Such a mistake should never have happened, and I won't make any excuses. I will say, though, that it was unintentional and that we have no desire to bash any vendor or product. Admitting our mistakes and doing our best to correct them is part of our responsibility to both you and the vendors. *

integrated system design  January 1998