UVM

I’m not so much enamored with functional languages as I am disgusted with object oriented languages. Was my father ahead of the times to promote field orientation over object orientation in art? Or is art just that much ahead of technology? I suspect both. More concretely and anecdotally, my experience with UVM is instructive. Speaking of concreteness, UVM is great at rewarding conformist imagination, and not so great at allowing intelligent imagination. I suspect that was the selling point that convinced the do nothing passengers of the corporate juggernauts, to impose UVM on the engineers blindly greasing the directionless corporate engine. So, UVM claims to standardize testbenchs, which may be so from 1000 feet above, and two tapeouts behind. In fact, UVM merely makes it harder to write tests. Much preferable would be Erlang, where tests are functions easily leveraging, or not, none any or all functions from other tests. Fundamentally, reuse is a choice, and by removing choice, UVM removes the possibility of reuse. Those that imposed UVM on us are not dolts. They knew reuse was only a buzzword in the context of UVM. The real purpose of UVM is imitation of the assembly line, not because assembly lines are more efficient, but because assembly lines prevent innovation, and innovation is anathema to the purpose of incorporation. Corporations exist to follow markets. Markets are easier to follow if they do not move. Innovation causes markets to move. Thus, they “invented” UVM.