|
Create a modulo-k counter by modifying the design of an 8-bit counter to contain an additional parameter. The
counter should count from 0 to k − 1. When the counter reaches the value k − 1, then the next counter value should
be 0. Include an output from the counter called rollover and set this output to 1 in the clock cycle where the count
value is equal to k − 1.
Perform the following steps:
1. Create a new Quartus II project which will be used to implement the desired circuit on your DE-series board.
2. Write a Verilog file that specifies the circuit for n = 8 and k = 20. Your circuit should use pushbutton KEY0
as an asynchronous reset and KEY1 as a manual clock input. The contents of the counter should be displayed
on the red lights LEDR7−0 , and the rollover signal should be displayed on the last LED. This is the LEDR9
for DE0-CV and DE1-SoC and the LEDR17 for DE2-115.
3. Include the VHDL file in your project and compile the circuit.
4. Simulate the designed circuit to verify its functionality.
5. Make the necessary pin assignments needed to implement the circuit on your DE-series board, and compile
the circuit.
6. Verify that your circuit works correctly by observing the lights.
modified 12-Jan-16 11:38am.
|
|
|
|
|
This looks like homework and nobody here will do it for you.
If you have a specific problem show us what you have tried so far and where you got stuck and you might get help.
But your question is related to a specific VHDL device and there might be not so many people here that are able to answer.
|
|
|
|
|
How can I get social networking/question answer site programming tutorial?
|
|
|
|
|
By searching with Google.
|
|
|
|
|
I did but nothing came out
|
|
|
|
|
Well that should tell you that no one has yet written one.
|
|
|
|
|
I am working on building a C#.Net winforms project using Entity Framework 5. Currently, I have Model.edmx file on a separate project (DAL) and in my UI layer, I am instantiating Model and accessing my entities, however, I would like to create a proper 3 tier architeture, where separation of concer is adhered to.
Data access layer (where Model.edmx is kept)
Business layer (where Model.edmx is instantiated etc.)
UI layer (all forms code is kept)
Any pointers? Or samples?
|
|
|
|
|
Resonate wrote: Any pointers?
Question is too broad.
People don't write application based on technologies. Rather they write applications to solve problems and use technologies as appropriate to solve the problem at hand.
If this is just a learning experience then there are simple examples which you can google for to learn the idiom. Best practice however doesn't come about from simple examples.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm working on a project that should bring together multiple "services" we offer together into one webpage. These services are basically different (long term) projects that provide different kinds of data. images, videos, "objects"(*), plain text, timeline data, ...
So the main architecture would be to write an interface that would serve the project's webpage, but also could be reused for other projects (so not only that webpage).
The current discussion is whether to use JSON, XML or web services. I'm looking for advantages/disadvantages for all three.
Personally I would opt for webservices. type-safe, most flexible and especially, no parsing  (in the sense that the IDE will interpret the wsdl for you). There is a learning curve for non-programmers and apparently php and web services don't mix well I'm told. (Most people here use php to do something code-wise). They use Python as well and I know that works and java is also used often. (I personally don't know php)
XML seems like a good alternative since you can create validation schemes (and make it more or less type-safe) and there are many libraries that can handle it reasonably well. It is a very verbose format.
JSON is very lightweight and easy understandable, but is less type-safe and no validation scheme to my knowledge.
So what is your thought on this? Any good read-ups on pro's and cons out there would also help.
thanks!
(*) Objects with attributes, a structured set of data belonging together.
|
|
|
|
|
Can all your prospective clients consume your transport format, if yes then use JSON, the sheer verbosity of XML can kill your network/server. That schema comes at a very high cost if you are transporting high volume or complex data.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
IIS can perform dynamic data compression; and XML can compress to less than 10% of its original size.
I talked one sports analysis vendor out of upgrading their transport layer by showing the reduction in bandwidth that compressing their XML game files would accomplish (which ranged up to several hundred megabytes uncompressed).
There is no generalization when it comes to transporting XML versus JSON in this case.
|
|
|
|
|
And if they aren't using IIS? Okay, that's slightly facetious as the other major web servers all offer similar functionality but it's always worth remembering that, where the poster hasn't specified a technology stack, that you can't assume a particular feature is available.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly.
But that's why I said "IIS"; and not "some web servers".
(One Google also told me Apache does compression ... Any others worth considering? WebSphere?).
I could have also argued that "protocols" (XML and JSON) are not the same as "web services"; and it's not like you pick "one of these".
And also about how I could use compressed "payloads" (which I already deal with when communicating with web services that supply graphics).
(It's not like I was going on about something totally unrelated to the question; like, "SQL injection" ... again).
|
|
|
|
|
I would vote for WSDL (SOAP?) based services...and PHP has no problem whatsoever to work with that...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: PHP has no problem whatsoever to work with that
I was indeed surprised when told. WSDL would be my first choice as well, but the people here don't like it for some reason (not standard, unlogical, verbose, ... ). I'm trying to convince them this is the way to go so I need arguments 
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I got the feeling, that new programming languages spread out of the earth like gras... or at least did so a while ago.
I want to question the need of new languages here. Why don't we have just a couple of basic rules and build the "languages" on top of it like add-ons. So if you want the have a keyword X, you can just implement it as an add-on to the compiler.
Why should that be necessary?
I think if you want to start a project and would have a free choice over the language you use, you might get in a situation like this:
- I want to use language X, but it's library is not that big
- I want to use Java, but it's too heavy
- I want to use x because it hast feature y
- I need lightweight stuff, so I should use X, but it lacks features, syntactic sugar, already implemented patterns.
I just came to think of that, because I'm usually using c++, which forces me to do a lot of writing for things, that could be automated (which by now, can only be done by the SDE).
On the other hand I also use Java, which lacks the constant-iation of the this-pointer or typedefs (as known from c++).
So then, the compiler would not be a blackbox anymore and everybody can create their own programming environment which suits best to the solution that's going to be created.
what do you think about this idea?
regards
|
|
|
|
|
 the idea is best but hard for implement but not for a programmer
|
|
|
|
|
I think most people would download every plugin they can find. Now imagine every plugin creating separate versions that may or may not work well together.
Source code isn't going to change once compiled; I do not see the advantage over loading a library and executing the containing code.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
You could change the syntax at places that are handy to you.
I remember one article of ChristianNeumanns.He talks about functions, that should tell in their head, if they can return NULL (like Java does with exception). Because of that, he wrote a totally new language.
Now, no matter how good his language is, if you can't use it, you can't have the features. But if you could load that "language feature palette" into your c++,java,smalltalk,c#,..., you can have the features in your current environment  (?)
|
|
|
|
|
D4rkTrick wrote: He talks about functions, that should tell in their head, if
they can return NULL (like Java does with exception). Because of that, he wrote
a totally new language.
Sounds like overkill; and when encoding too much information in a name you get more unreadable code.
My user-code could adhere to the same principle, I do not see what value the change to the language has (is it the language, or rather the framework? Sounds more like the latter one where somebody thinks his naming is 'better')
I also do not see how this would work in practice; it may change code unintentionally whenever someone downloads a new 'keyword'. How would that affect code that's already compiled?
I think the amount of actual keywords is limited, and the bulk of extensions will be done in usercode, using plugins. As for language-extensibility, I'm happy with the current .NET runtime; new keywords are defined (!) for each version, and they are consistent - with the added option to define your own language for the runtime, and the ability to extend the syntactic sugar using either a plugin for your IDE, or adding 'aspects'
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: I also do not see how this would work in practice; it may change code unintentionally whenever someone downloads a new 'keyword'. How would that affect code that's already compiled?
oh, yeh, I actually didn't think of that! The portability would indeed suffer very much by adding such a feature.
...Also you made .NET a little bit more interesting for me
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks 
|
|
|
|
|
D4rkTrick wrote: I got the feeling, that new programming languages spread out of the earth like gras
Rather certain that that is a fact. Use the following to watch the ones that actually make it above the noise come and then go.
http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html[^]
And an example of extremism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitespace_%28programming_language%29[^]
D4rkTrick wrote: So if you want the have a keyword X, you can just implement it as an add-on to the compiler.
To a large extent there have already been languages like that. "Forth" is just that. There was some other language sponsored by the US government (i believe) years ago that did something simpler.
There is however a great deal of difference between whether something is possible and whether you should do it.
D4rkTrick wrote: you might get in a situation like this:
Not me. I have learned that all of that is subjective.
D4rkTrick wrote: which forces me to do a lot of writing for things, that could be automated
Learn how to do code generation. You write a program that takes in input source and outputs code.
HOWEVER, that said, do not think that even most code can be created that way. At some point the very reason programmers are needed is due to the variable nature of what is needed. And writing a code generator that can handle that is not only impossible but even attempting to do so produces code in the generator that is a mess.
D4rkTrick wrote: So then, the compiler would not be a blackbox anymore
You might enjoy taking some college level courses specifically addressing compiler design.
|
|
|
|
|
So funny that a couple of years later (now) people are using babel, webpack, typescript, which is essentially exactly what I was thinking at that time
|
|
|
|
|
I'm relatively new to web applications development, specially when it comes to frontend, but as I understood, a typical frontend would have a php/jsp layer that calls the backend to generate dynamic pages.
Now we're designing a new site, and a colleague of mine insists on not having that layer. He wants the pages to have html and JS, that will then directly invoke the backend. This, of course, means having the backend services publicly available, which I'm not particularly comfortable with.
Is this architecture somehow common? Can it be considered to follow MVC?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
