8 bit microcontroller market
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: Tiny Bootloader
Next: Link&Locate 86?
From: John F on 13 Sep 2006 15:39 Joerg wrote: > Hello John, Hello Joerg! >> I have some of these re-fitters... >> http://www.klimalex.de/html/heizungsthermostat.html > > Fancy! While in Germany I had "analog" ones, actually 100% > mechanical > and capillary fluid driven. Don't be disappointed to see no uC at > all > in there. Probably an ASIC. I have them here too (in most rooms). But as I moved to Vienna for work most of the time I tend to reduce temperature in unused rooms. Saves a few m? of gas :-) I'll still have a look in there :-) >> I can believe that. Why change it, if its working, selling and >> probably still market leader :-) > > Exactamente. If a 4-bitter is good enough there is no reason to > change. Yep. My words :-) >>>> ... Maybe it's not the ?C that's cheaper but some stuff that's >>>> done in >>>> 10ct analog rather than buying a much more expensive ?C capable >>>> of >>>> performing the same stunt... >>> >>> That needs to sink in with some uC manufacturers. Often their reps >>> could not understand that I'd turn down an 80c uC. It was because >>> the >>> analog solution cost only 50c. It might contain 30 parts and look >>> ugly to some. But it's still only 50c. >> >> Yep. And: The real world is still analog. Someone should tell them >> :-) > > A SW engineer said that the world is digital because you'll always > reach the smallest unit change eventually. Max Planck must have > spoiled the broth for us analog guys :-( Naaaahhhhhh!! :-) Gravity is not quantized yet, if I'm up to date :-) -- Johannes You can have it: Quick, Accurate, Inexpensive. Pick two.
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky on 13 Sep 2006 16:05 Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >>The user interface of a microwave oven is already too complicated to be >>developed in asm... > > > I honestly still don't understand where you are taking this. But I > suspect that this example is a bit of a strawman. I think the user > interface of a microwave oven is a good place for a mostly using a > language other than asm, though I suppose there might be a small bit > of asm in many of them. However, that isn't how you say things. > > You seem to suggest, perhaps unintentionally, that such things are > also "too complicated" for asm. On that score, this sounds to me like > something spoken by someone who probably hasn't developed significant > applications entirely in asm. When I was young and stupid, I developed everything entirely in the asm. Mostly it was because the early C compilers were very inefficient, full of bugs and poorly documented. I was too lazy to learn something new and unintelligible, especially when I had such simple and clear tool as the assembler seems to be. Once I developed the application of 500k lines of asm. Finally that got me to realize that this is not the right way to do things. Then the AVR and IAR C appeared. After that, there was absolutely no need for me to develop anything in the asm for 8-biter. I've done applications spanning many, > many hundreds of printed pages of asm (filling some 6 thick volumes, Why would you need the complete source code in the hardcopy? > actually, and including floating point routines, transcendentals, etc) No problem. I did all of that till I finally realized that there is no reason in reinventing the wheel. > providing timesharing services and interpreters for dozens of very > active users entirely in asm and I'm quite sure that the user > interface of a microwave oven would be rather trivial by comparison. > So it's not out of the bounds, nor even particularly difficult. (In > that case, I had little choice at the time, though, due to processing > rate capabilities of 1960's technology and available options regarding > tools. Today, I'd use a high level language for a very significant > part of it.) > > Asm almost always has some place within the embedded applications I > work on. Perhaps 2-5%, or so, in many cases. Agreed. In a few cases, 100%. Example? > It depends on circumstances. But reducing asm to zero almost doesn't > happen, except in rather trivial test cases. And I'm not just talking > about applications I personally write, but those of people I work with > in similar product areas. It really isn't unusual. I did quute a lot of mixed C and assembly programming for the different processors. Surprisingly, I never had to use any asm coding with AVR and IAR EC++. > > Of course, I'm sure that there are times and places where assembly is > simply not used by the application developers -- but those places will > be where priorities and trade-offs are be markedly different from > mine. No criticism should be lobbed, either way. We know what we are > doing, just as I'm sure you do. My solutions wouldn't make sense to > some other application areas and their solutions wouldn't make sense > to mine. > > My only suggestion might simply be that being facile with assembly is > an enabling skill. From my experience, the people who are aggressively advocating the assembler are the ignorants who stuck with the seeming clarity and simplicity. You can use it, or not, as the application > requires. But if you don't have much facility or familiarity with it, > enough that you are comfortable applying it, then you won't. Even > when the situation might be improved or completed more quickly with > it. (It would be manifestly wrong to suggest these situations do not > ever occur.) If you have the right set of mind, it is just the matter of convenience what tool to use to develop the software. VLV
From: Joerg on 13 Sep 2006 16:21 Hello John, >>> >>>Yep. And: The real world is still analog. Someone should tell them >>>:-) >> >>A SW engineer said that the world is digital because you'll always >>reach the smallest unit change eventually. Max Planck must have >>spoiled the broth for us analog guys :-( > > > Naaaahhhhhh!! :-) Gravity is not quantized yet, if I'm up to date :-) > Gravity is caused by some big and usually spinning mass, commonly referred to as a planet :-))) So, since these are a concoction of molecules which are quantized... -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com
From: Joerg on 13 Sep 2006 16:26 Hello Vladimir, > >>> So, you are talking about using the asm for the really primitive >>> applications, like toys, tools, timers, dimmers, etc. >>> >> >> These are not the lone asm categories but the categories where saving >> 1/2c actually can make sense. Also, primitive or not, one can make a >> lot of money with this stuff. > > > You are missing the main point. > > Primitive applications are developed by the primitive people who are > paid the primitive money for their primitive job. The company can make a > lot of money from it however it is a completely different story. > What you call primitive applications are everywhere. The engineers I have seen working on these are intelligent people, often more so than those who do not have to find their ways around limited budgets. Their jobs are not primitive but rather challenging. Have you ever designed a consumer product that must be produced for less than $5? It's fun. Oh, and neither I nor clients have a problem receiving primitive money :-) -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com
From: John F on 13 Sep 2006 16:33
Joerg wrote: > Hello John, > >>>> >>>> Yep. And: The real world is still analog. Someone should tell >>>> them >>>> :-) >>> >>> A SW engineer said that the world is digital because you'll always >>> reach the smallest unit change eventually. Max Planck must have >>> spoiled the broth for us analog guys :-( >> >> >> Naaaahhhhhh!! :-) Gravity is not quantized yet, if I'm up to date >> :-) > > Gravity is caused by some big and usually spinning mass, commonly > referred to as a planet :-))) > > So, since these are a concoction of molecules which are quantized... Now as you say it... There was a recent article in Scientific American on Higgs-fields... -- Johannes You can have it: Quick, Accurate, Inexpensive. Pick two. |