It seems to be though a lot the open source stuff seems to pick Verilog for some reason.
Most commercial tools support both HDLs.
I should also add that if you wanted to use a single language for everything OSVVM is excellent.
While not a big fan of the begin end style syntax, it definitely is better than verilog in my experience.
I find interesting so many open source projects like this target Verilog. It also kinda bugs me.
Modulo "HDL is different because everything is synchronous" and the testing DSL, You can learn most of verilog in a day, not so much VHDL.
For me, the syntax is ideal. On the plus side VHDL seems to have actually been designed with the intention of being used for FPGA designs. Verilog on the other hand just seems like a hack in comparison.
VHDL also supports defining record types, such that a collection of signals can be assigned together.
Most complaints about Verilog from VHDL people come from outdated notions of the current state of the language and its tooling.
I dont like the begin end style syntax and some the verbosity that entails with VHDL. However, I would rather create designs in VHDL than verilog when given the choice.
You can even do:
typedef enum bit[1:0] {
my_one, my_two, my_three, my_four
} my_enum;
typedef struct packed {
my_enum b,
bit [3:0] x
} my_struct
my_struct.b <= my_three;
etc...It's been a nice path since I last dealt with Verilog. The concept of interfaces makes struct/vector input/output even nicer.
Thanks!
What I meant were the free toolchains provided by all of the FPGA vendors. They typically support SystemVerilog in synthesis and modelsim as far as I have seen.
Indeed I'd say SystemVerilog is doing better on that front, as Verilator (https://www.veripool.org/verilator/) supports SystemVerilog and is probably the best open source tool for 'real' HDL work (note the number of industrial users).
Any time VHDL comes up it's usually in the context of "this isn't a problem in VHDL". (But also "this would be way more verbose in VHDL")