Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: brianm@cat50.cs.wisc.edu (Brian Miller) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Simulations of Nanotech Tools Message-ID: Date: 9 Nov 89 23:13:27 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept Lines: 49 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu In article landman@hanami.eng.sun.com (Howard A. Landman x61391) writes: >Very little industrial-strength CAD is done using AI-based >tools today, Today's CAD technology is relatively embrionic. More adolescent CAD technology will probably integrate approaches to problems provided by *many* facets of comp sci, engineering, and information theory. This includes AI. When one passes judgement on CAD's employment of AI techniques, he must realize that the phenomenon he is observing has been hastily implemented. >...and the fraction of AI in a field like that tends to *decrease* >as the field matures. Doubt it, seriously. As a tool, AI is ideally suited for tackling design problems. >For example, computer Chess used to be an AI topic but >is now merely an engineering topic, It is true that the fastest and best chess mahines are devoloped from the hardware up, but hardware design is itself a fruitful playingfield for AI. Let's keep _that_ a secret! :{) >All the programs in the latest international computer Chess >championship were written in C, The language used does not always limit the approach to a problem. AI can be implemented in C if the software engineer feels most comfortable with C. Any language would do. Afterall, AI is an abstract method, a partial one with respect to solving a solution, and it may be harnessed with any language. C is favored for its structure, flexibility, and proximity to the host system. It's selection is purely an implementation decision. >In electronics, CAD tools tend to lag about one generation behind the hardware. >That is, today's tools are perfect for the system you built a couple years ago, >but they never quite handle what you need for *today's* design. Also, support >for mainstream technologies is always better than that for fringe technologies. >Even today, design tools for ECL and GaAs are more limited than those for CMOS. Yeah, there's a terrible lag between the development of technology and the creation of CAD tools to harness it. It's like being hungry and realizing that you have to make it to the 'frige before you can get down to business. :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brianm.