.NET micro framework ... end of embedded world???
in [Embedded]
|
From: David Brown on 10 Dec 2009 16:00 Andrew wrote: > Bob wrote: >> On 9 Dec, 15:11, Andrew <asm...(a)blackstone.biz> wrote: >>> What is he future? ARMs are coming down in price. >>> Microsoft has made micro framework license free. >>> Creating firmware has become high level (C#), >>> cheap, and perhaps the next big thing? >> >> "There is no magic bullet". But marketing will always tell you they >> have one. In high volume applications, the unit cost is the most >> important factor, so the development environment may not even be >> relevant. ARMs have always been coming down in price, and we have been >> using high-level language for years, so don't expect a revolution from >> a language which is worse in terms of embedded performance. Opening up >> development to script kiddies is unlikely to benefit the industry >> significantly. >> >>> Will asm/C go the way of the dinosaur? >>> Will 8 bit micros become obsolete? >> >> Unlikely. The more likely scenario is that they will continue to >> dominate in particular niches, and unit cost will always be an issue. >> New higher power platforms tend to create new niches, where 8 bitters >> were never used, eg. set top boxes. >> >> You really need to understand the current market place before >> speculating about the future. Do some research into current embedded >> projects broken down by language and architecture. The results may >> surprise you. Many years after C++, C still dominates, and more 8- >> bitters are sold than ever before. > > C++ flopped for embedded. C++ is probably the second most popular language for embedded development these days. I don't know the statistics, but I'd guess it to be more popular than assembly or java. C++ has a reputation for adding bloat (in size and runtime) compared to C, especially for small systems. That can certainly be true if you don't know what you are doing, and don't understand how your compiler works (this is typical for programmers with a PC programming background). If you use decent tools and understand how they work, you can write C++ code for 8-bit micros with very little overhead. So while C++ is an underdog compared to C in embedded projects, it is far from "flopped". > EC++ never made it to mainstream. EC++ is just C++ with some bits missing. The theory was it would avoid the "bloat" - in practice, it avoids some of the more useful features that would improve development with no run-time or code space costs. So most people who might have been interested in EC++ simply use C++ compilers with flags like "-fno-rtti" and "-fno-exceptions", and avoid the STL. > C remains the staple for small firmware projects. > Correct. > Its remained that way for 30 years. Seems like change is inevitable. Your logic is somewhat twisted. If it were correct that C had been the staple for 30 years (it hasn't - assembly used to be much more common, although C was used with bigger devices and bigger projects), then it would seem to me that a /continued dominance/ of C is inevitable. A long-term constant is not exactly a typical sign of an impending change! In fact, given the rate at which new processors and architectures come and go in the embedded world, the dominance of C is an outstanding consistency. > 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. > First, the cost of 8-bit micros and 32-bit micros is /not/ the same, nor will it ever be. The processor is just one of the features of a microcontroller, and one that many developers consider a minor point (mainly due to the fact that you can program them all in the same language - C). You might be able to get a 32-bit micro for the same price as some 8-bit micros - but the feature set, including things like voltage ranges, power consumption, ease of use - will be different. The embedded development community likes a wide choice, and it likes a consistency of devices across projects - 8-bit micros will remain popular for a long time even if they were more expensive. > The question is will it be something like C# micro framework? The answer is no. Even though the micro framework has an Apache license, few people that are not already committed MS fanboys would trust anything from them - even if there were any technical reasons to choose it.
From: David Brown on 10 Dec 2009 16:37 Andrew wrote: > David Brown wrote: >> Andrew wrote: >>> Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew wrote: >>>> >>>>> What is he future? ARMs are coming down in price. >>>>> Microsoft has made micro framework license free. >>>>> Creating firmware has become high level (C#), >>>>> cheap, and perhaps the next big thing? >>>>> >>>>> Will asm/C go the way of the dinosaur? >>>>> Will 8 bit micros become obsolete? >>>> >>>> The future is there is going to be more and more idiots like you. >>> >>> Jackass. >> >> While there was no need for Vladimir to be so rude, what kind of >> answer were you expecting? I have no idea where you are coming from, >> or if you understand what embedded development actually /is/ (judging >> from your email address, you work for an investment company rather >> than a development company), but few people in this newsgroup will see >> your questions as anything other than a poor joke or trolling. I'll >> give you some answers - mainly because it's nice to have a discussion >> about the future, and I'd be interested to hear opinions and comments >> from others in the group. > > I'm a developer. Just lost a project that could have been > done with an AVR to ARM with micro framework. > Without knowing your project, I can't say whether it could have been done with an ARM and the micro framework or not. But I would be surprised indeed if you lost the project because you did not use the micro framework. >> MS has never made anything for /free/, as far as I know. It offers >> some things with zero cost price, but the strings attached make them >> far from "free". If nothing else, their "free" stuff pushes users >> towards their non-free stuff. That's not necessarily a criticism - >> they are a company, trying to make a living. But hearing that >> "Microsoft has made micro framework license free" is of any serious >> interest to very few people in this area. >> > > ARMs are coming down in price - that's true. There are three sorts of >> ARM - microcontroller ARMs (programmed in C or C++), mobile phone ARMs >> (programmed in C, C++ or Java), and Linux ARMs (programmed in C, C++, >> Java, Python, Perl, bash, tcl/tk, whatever). C# and MS do not figure >> on ARM. > > That is what micro framework is all about. > C# on an ARM7 or even a Cortex. > http://www.microsoft.com/netmf/hardware/default.mspx > Have you actually had a look at the information on MS's website, or on Wikipedia? They are talking about Cortex A processors - not Cortex M microcontrollers. Even with the ARM7 it is aimed at processors running at hundreds of MHz and with large memories - the minimum memory footprint is 300 K according to Wikipedia. Top-range Cortex M3 devices run at something like 72 MHz with 512 KB flash and 64 KB ram. There are certainly plenty of embedded systems with sufficient processing power to run this stuff - but the majority of embedded development is done with devices that are too small, without the space and processing power to waste on this sort of thing. MS has shown time and again that it simply does not understand about embedded systems - Wince is a total and utter fiasco considering the money and commercial muscle behind it. I see no reason to suspect that this attempt will be any different. >> The market share of 32-bit microcontroller is increasing over that of >> the 8-bit microcontrollers, but 8-bitters are far from obsolete (4-bit >> microcontrollers are still mass produced). But these 32-bit micros >> are better seen as being like 8-bit microcontrollers with more >> powerful cores and development tools - they are no more related to the >> PC world than the 8-bitters are. > > That is the topic of this thread. > Are cheap 32bit micros going to displace 8bit micros? In general, no. They will get more common, and they will take over for some sorts of designs - but they will not replace them. > The cost difference is converging. > You mean the /costs/ are converging. That's true to some extent - in particular, there is an overlap in price and features between the largest 8-bit devices and the smallest 32-bit devices. But even the smallest and cheapest 32-bit devices can't compete with small to medium 8-bit devices on cost, size and power, and the typical peripheral features for the different classes of devices are different. Remember, just as 32-bit micros are getting smaller, cheaper, faster, and lower power, so are the 8-bit micros. >> As for Vladimir's comments, I guess like the rest of us he worries >> about Windows-trained PC programmers getting involved in embedded >> development. Embedded systems development is very different from >> writing Visual Basic or C# on Windows, but PHB's often fail to >> understand that, resulting in the wrong people working in the wrong >> jobs (or perhaps the right people, but with the wrong training). > > That appears to be microsoft's purpose in promoting micro framework. > I think another poster summed up MS's purpose fairly well... > "The .NET Micro Framework aims to make embedded development easier, > faster, and less expensive by giving embedded developers access to the > modern technologies and tools used by desktop application developers. > Additionally, it allows desktop .NET developers to use their skills in > the embedded world, enlarging the pool of qualified embedded developers." > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Micro_Framework >
From: nospam on 10 Dec 2009 17:54 David Brown <david.brown(a)hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote: >> EC++ never made it to mainstream. > >EC++ is just C++ with some bits missing. The theory was it would avoid >the "bloat" - in practice, it avoids some of the more useful features >that would improve development with no run-time or code space costs. The theory was suppliers could keep selling obsolete C++ compilers by coming up with a new name.
From: -jg on 10 Dec 2009 18:54 On Dec 11, 4:34 am, Andrew <asm...(a)blackstone.biz> wrote: > > I'm a developer. Just lost a project that could have been > done with an AVR to ARM with micro framework. What was the project, and what volumes, and future-change targets ? Quite a few low volume applications, have a wide range of possible solution candidates. > > That is the topic of this thread. > Are cheap 32bit micros going to displace 8bit micros? > The cost difference is converging. Not quite, The thread topic seems to confuse Microprocessor, with Microcontroller. Most high volume embedded designs, use Microcontrollers : Single chip devices, with fixed Code and Ram. The software also tends to be fixed. Microcontrollers use external memory, and commonly have operating systems, and even .net baggage too. On these systems, software update are common, and there are after- market applications sold as well. Sure. the latter category ARE getting physically smaller, but they will NEVER display Microcontrollers. -jg
From: Andrew on 10 Dec 2009 23:54
larwe wrote: > 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. Uh, you are quoting something I didn't write and attaching my name. As for being a "troll", just because you find a topic disturbing, doesn't mean others don't find it interesting. |