(ICU 04 Item 10 ) ----------------------------------------------- [10/07/04]
Subject: Cadence Documentation
PAPERWORK: Because Cadence tools come from 50 different parent companies,
it's no surprise that user's see Cadence documentation quality as wildly
varying from tool to tool. Such is life. The other big user complaint is
that the documentation may be very good but they simply can't find it when
they need it.
What do you think of Cadence's documentation? Is it (choose one)
usually helpful & complete, or so-so, or lame?
helpful: ################# 35%
so-so: ################### 38%
lame: ############## 28%
Actually pretty good once you find the right document. Download the PDF
once you do find it, because you'll never see it again. Cross linking
between documents is horrible. Try finding a document in a particular
tool version section. Aarg. Try finding a useful map of tools and
documents. Yeesh. Newer tools have nothing useful. Worst I've seen is
probably Encounter TDE.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
The different books are not always separated in a very "natural" way.
It ends up taking some time to actually find the information you're
looking for.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Just like SourceLink, the content is very good but the interface is
nearly impenetrable. The largest problem is usually finding what new
binary they've hidden it in and how, exactly, to launch it -- without
any documentation.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
The CDSdoc tool is lousy. I usually open the PDF files directly. CeltIC
seems to be the worst documented tool. Assura documentation was good.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Celtic-NDC is the worst one. SOC Encounter is the better, although need
improvment.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I think Cadence documentation has improved alot in recent years. The
documentation still does not meet my expectation. It is still not
complete nor as helpful as I think it can be. FE's documentation is OK.
SE and Design Planner's docs were a lot less helpful.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
"Painful" is the word that comes to mind. I'd say Cadence docs are worse
than Synopsys in my experience.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
The docs are not too bad. They're all documented fairly well.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
"So-so". Occasionally "lame", but usually so-so. Best docs for Virtuoso.
Worst docs for NanoRoute.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
So-so, SoC Encounter is poorly covered. Numerous undocumented commands.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Mostly helpful & complete but Conformal docs are really lacking.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Assura Skill coding is badly documented.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Documentation is usually helpful, though it is often outdated. For
technical details, nearly always need clarification from local support.
First Encounter documentation seems to be the worst.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Cadence's documentation is the worst! I find more useful information by
searching the web and finding student's notes from colleges. I think
Cadence's manuals are bad so they can push the training courses.
|
|
