.NET micro framework ... end of embedded world???
in [Embedded]
|
From: Andrew on 11 Dec 2009 00:06 -jg wrote: > On Dec 11, 4:34 am, Andrew <asm...(a)blackstone.biz> wrote: > > 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. I'm sure you meant microprocessor on next line. > 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 ..NET micro framework WILL run on single chip microcontroller. http://www.ghielectronics.com/product/113 That is what this thread is about.
From: don on 11 Dec 2009 01:55 Andrew wrote: > -jg wrote: >> On Dec 11, 4:34 am, Andrew <asm...(a)blackstone.biz> wrote: >> >> 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. > > I'm sure you meant microprocessor on next line. > >> 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 > > .NET micro framework WILL run on single chip microcontroller. > http://www.ghielectronics.com/product/113 > That is what this thread is about. > > > This gets back to what is an embedded system. I am sure M$ has its sights on iPhones and the like, not real embedded systems like motor drives and instrumentation. In the 80s, the Z80 and 8086 covered the landscape with embedded system hidden for public view to the TRS-80 Business machine. As each generation of new processors hit the market, business application gets more CPU power to run. Once the internet hit, there was not ever enough CPU and Graphics horsepower. I for one have seen M$ steal the term "embedded" to mean something that I have never worked with. I like many (most) here, work in the real embedded world. Having a 32-bit processor is really nice when algorithms get very complicated. But resource limited (read cost limited) processors are whats in the embedded world. So, if the OP wants to build a new app for the iPhone or whatever, he is just building a high level app like what a CPM/PC/MAC has been doing for years, not doing real embedded work. don
From: David Brown on 11 Dec 2009 02:53 nospam wrote: > 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. > I hadn't thought of that, but it does make a sort of sense. While you can argue that omitting all support for exceptions and rtti saves runtime costs, omitting template support saves nothing (it only costs if you use templates badly) - but many earlier C++ compilers had poor or missing template support. However, without further evidence I'll have to assume EC++ was conceived with the best of intentions, and simply botched.
From: David Brown on 11 Dec 2009 03:13 Andrew wrote: > 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. > It's not much of a quotation, but you did in fact write the quoted line. > As for being a "troll", just because you > find a topic disturbing, doesn't mean others > don't find it interesting. A "troll" is someone who deliberately makes provocative statements or questions designed mainly to irritate people. I don't believe you are "trolling", but I can certainly see why some here view you as such. The simple fact is that MS in general, and dotnet in particular (micro or not) is so far out of line with /real/ embedded development that many experienced engineers here will think you are either a troll, an astroturfer (someone who, for their own financial gain, pretends to be genuinely enthusiastic about a product), or you are simply ignorant and inexperienced in the field of embedded development, and have been duped by marketing. Given your email address, it would be easy to think that you are an astroturfer - you are trying to drum up support and enthusiasm for this framework or products using it, presumably because Blackstone has invested in companies promoting it. The flaw in this theory is that astroturfers seldom use a valid email address. Of course, it is also conceivable that this micro framework is useful for some applications and some developers. I can't deny having a certain prejudice against anything with "Microsoft" and "embedded" in the same sentence (though I use Windows on desktops for pragmatic reasons) - MS has build up a very clear reputation over many years that I believe justifies this prejudice. Nonetheless, the topic is interesting, and the thread would be rather boring without someone who thinks the framework has its merits!
From: larwe on 11 Dec 2009 05:34
On Dec 10, 11:54 pm, Andrew <asm...(a)blackstone.biz> wrote: > 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. > > Uh, you are quoting something I didn't write and attaching my name. NOT true. Look at the thread. You added the line "That appears to be..." |