.NET micro framework ... end of embedded world???
in [Embedded]
|
From: larwe on 10 Dec 2009 11:02 On Dec 10, 10:34 am, Andrew <asm...(a)blackstone.biz> wrote: > That appears to be microsoft's purpose in promoting micro framework. > No, the purpose in promoting micro framework is to establish a beachhead in a market where Microsoft has never been successful, with a proprietary programming language controlled by Microsoft, and thereby to steer larger projects towards laughably unpopular operating systems such as WinCE. You really are a troll.
From: Didi on 10 Dec 2009 12:00 On Dec 10, 5:40 pm, Andrew <asm...(a)blackstone.biz> wrote: > .... > C++ flopped for embedded. EC++ never made it to mainstream. > C remains the staple for small firmware projects. > > Its remained that way for 30 years. Seems like change is inevitable. > But when and what? If the cost is the same for 8bit vs. 32bit > then its logical that something else is possible in the > not so distant future. > > The question is will it be something like C# micro framework? It may well be that embedded goes down the drain like PCs did decades ago (being Intel & MS based makes them useless to me except for TV-set like usage). But I am not sure MS are there yet. How large a memory footprint will something based on that stuff have? If cost does not matter, power consumption will likely continue to do so - and larger code size means not only more memory to be kept powered, but more memory accesses, each costing power. Same goes for the wider bus. For example, recently I introduced this: http://tgi-sci.com/tgi/nmcatb.htm .. Being remotely accessible via RFB (at 100 MbpS this is seamless, at 10 it is OK to work with); complete DPS plus the complete nuclear spectrometry software fit in < 2 megabytes of flash, *non-compressed* (mostly in a disk-like image, about 64K of "bios" code). And I have not even begun to optimize for code size (have a reserve for old, 68-k targeted code, which could buy me another 25 to 50% - not sure about the exact figure). How does that MS thing compare to these figures? (I don't know the answer, may be they can beat me...). Dimiter ------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments http://www.tgi-sci.com ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/sets/72157600228621276/ Original message: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.arch.embedded/msg/adee2974c2364dee?dmode=source
From: Nobody on 10 Dec 2009 12:45 On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:12:17 +0100, David Brown wrote: > As for Vladimir's comments, I guess like the rest of us he worries about > Windows-trained PC programmers getting involved in embedded development. I'm also worried about that. And by "worried", I mean "scared". A lot of embedded development is in contexts where mistakes can kill people. The problem isn't necessarily with the tools per se, but with the "culture" which surrounds them. PC development (and I include Windows, Linux, and Mac here) has a culture where deadlines take priority and any bugs are dealt with by an endless stream of patches. Embedded development doesn't work that way.
From: Didi on 10 Dec 2009 14:02 On Dec 10, 7:45 pm, Nobody <nob...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:12:17 +0100, David Brown wrote: > > As for Vladimir's comments, I guess like the rest of us he worries about > > Windows-trained PC programmers getting involved in embedded development.. > > I'm also worried about that. And by "worried", I mean "scared". A lot of > embedded development is in contexts where mistakes can kill people. > > The problem isn't necessarily with the tools per se, but with the > "culture" which surrounds them. > > PC development (and I include Windows, Linux, and Mac here) has a culture > where deadlines take priority and any bugs are dealt with by an endless > stream of patches. Embedded development doesn't work that way. I believe you are understating how messy the PC development is from a software point of view. It is a whole culture (or rather lack thereof) of wasting resources, sometimes deliberately (to have new hardware sold). A PC is no more efficient than a 4 seat car sized as an apartment block on thousands of differently sized, awkwardly coupled and mostly synchronized wheels. Dimiter ------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments http://www.tgi-sci.com ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/sets/72157600228621276/
From: Josep Duran on 10 Dec 2009 15:51
On Dec 10, 10:12 am, David Brown <da...(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: > Andrew wrote: > > *** Interesting stuff removed **** > I don't think the OP will find many people supporting embedded .NET. Not here anyway. I am by heart a linux user, and also a windows user when forced to. Microsoft has earned a bad reputation among many 'expert' users. I think people shouldn't underestimate the achievements of microsoft in the later years. A good part of the problems with different Windows versions are not Microsoft fault, but often third party problems. Microsoft is (arguably) responsible of a great part of current state of computers. (for good and...) But then, there is linux that does the same, if not much better. A whole different philosophy. In recent years the whole software industry has lost north. New software is full of useless characteristics, full of bugs etc. Embedded is (and should be) a completely different scene. No bugs allowed. No patching. No updating. Well, more or less. As for the future, everything is possible. While high level languages are interesting and possible, so is lower lever. FPGAs, soft CPUS etc. I share the fear/concern regarding new people entering the field. I am also concerned with management who can't tell the differences between simple and complex developments. I fear managers that buy the idea of simplicity. But then, they should be more concerned than me. Regards Josep Duran |