Cadence® system design and verification solutions, integrated under our System Development Suite, provide the simulation, acceleration, emulation, and management capabilities.
System Development Suite Related Products A-Z
Cadence® digital design and signoff solutions provide a fast path to design closure and better predictability, helping you meet your power, performance, and area (PPA) targets.
Full-Flow Digital Solution Related Products A-Z
Cadence® custom, analog, and RF design solutions can help you save time by automating many routine tasks, from block-level and mixed-signal simulation to routing and library characterization.
Overview Related Products A-Z
Driving efficiency and accuracy in advanced packaging, system planning, and multi-fabric interoperability, Cadence® package implementation products deliver the automation and accuracy.
Cadence® PCB design solutions enable shorter, more predictable design cycles with greater integration of component design and system-level simulation for a constraint-driven flow.
An open IP platform for you to customize your app-driven SoC design.
Comprehensive solutions and methodologies.
Helping you meet your broader business goals.
A global customer support infrastructure with around-the-clock help.
24/7 Support - Cadence Online Support
Locate the latest software updates, service request, technical documentation, solutions and more in your personalized environment.
Cadence offers various software services for download. This page describes our offerings, including the Allegro FREE Physical Viewer.
Get the most out of your investment in Cadence technologies through a wide range of training offerings.
This course combines our Allegro PCB Editor Basic Techniques, followed by Allegro PCB Editor Intermediate Techniques.
Virtuoso Analog Design Environment Verifier 16.7
Learn learn to perform requirements-driven analog verification using the Virtuoso ADE Verifier tool.
Exchange ideas, news, technical information, and best practices.
The community is open to everyone, and to provide the most value, we require participants to follow our Community Guidelines that facilitate a quality exchange of ideas and information.
It's not all about the technlogy. Here we exchange ideas on the Cadence Academic Network and other subjects of general interest.
Cadence is a leading provider of system design tools, software, IP, and services.
In my last blog entry, I mentioned that I was able to keep up with a lot of the discussion going on at a recent Accellera TSC meeting just by reading the tweets from the participants. That experience got me thinking about how much social media has changed the nature of such meetings, and the consequences of these changes. Clearly, public tweeting from confidential meetings related to your job is crazy and an invitation to be fired on the spot. But one can argue that meetings of standards bodies are of a different nature, with the more openness the better, so on-the-fly tweeting is perfectly acceptable.
I am not criticizing my colleagues or others who tweeted at this particular TSC meeting, but I am raising the question of whether this is a good thing. I have had a fair amount of standards experience over the years in Accellera, IEEE, VSIA, PCI Special Interest Group, 1394 Trade Association, etc. Some groups were quite open even in those pre-Twitter days, with public notes posted almost as soon as each meeting was over. Others were closed, with the expliciit or implicit understanding that what happened in the meetings stayed among the membership until and unless a press release was issued.
While I think that closed meetings have some value, especially in terms of focus, in the standards world I find myself leaning toward a more open stance. Calling for outside input before important votes would involve more
people and potentially bring in more information that could lead to
better decisions. Of course, communicating the big decisions will happen naturally if tweeting is allowed at all. The biggest risk I see is excessive tweeting for every lilttle twist and turn of the discussions, which may reveal too much about "how the sausage is made" and send the impression that the standards group is indecisive.
Another concern is that meetings are tough enough these days with half the participants reading email and texting; adding Twitter to the mix might bring progress to a halt. There's also the possibility that participants might be less open about their opinions if they fear that their words will be instantly broadcast to the whole planet and archived forever. So, I'm perhaps 60% aligned with those who support tweeting from Accellera TSC (and similar) meetings and 40% aligned with those who find this a distraction or an impediment for the committee. I'd like to start a dialogue on this topic - what do YOU think?
The truth is
out there...sometimes it's in a blog.
Interesting topic Tom.
In my opinion, reading emails, blackberries etc in meetings is a pretty poor show, it shows that you're not really that interested in being at the meeting. In that vein, twittering is just as bad.
However, there is a perception at large that these kind of standards committees are full of vendors conspiring to deliver anything but the best interests of the industry. One good thing about making these meeting totally public (to view at least) is that if someone doubts a committee member's intentions, then the public record is there to set the matter straight.
And of course if the meetings are recorded, it will help ensure those who aren't pulling their weight get found out, thus the work may be accelerated as no-one wants to be seen to be the blocking point...