Searching \ for '[TECH] Software tag needed? <-- Re: EE Change CRC' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/method/errors.htm?key=crc
Search entire site for: 'Software tag needed? <-- Re: EE Change CRC'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[TECH] Software tag needed? <-- Re: EE Change CRC '
2008\07\14@190508 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
Crosspost.
Change to [TECH] tag
New subject line.

_______________________

I suggest that this discussion should be being held in TECH

as it relates to whether material belongs in TECH or
elsewhere. AND the subject line needs changing.

What say any responses are posted there? I'll
dual post this and with a changed subject line.


> My issue is this:

> An EE doesn't have to deal with TECH: or OT: garbage if he
> doesn't want to.
> The poor SE has no choice. ...


Having carefully read that, my original comment applies.

Core:

{Quote hidden}

I generally agree with your arguments. There may well be
many others who agree. It seems likely that such material
will be migrating out of EE (not my choice except as 1 of N
members). Letting the new arrangement settle down and then
seeing how people feel.

James argued for years that a proliferation of tags would
lead to administrative nightmares AND a demand for still
more tags. He may or may not prove right on the first point.
He seems to be being proven right on the second.



           Russell


2008\07\14@194443 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
Random thoughts. How can this be made into one coherent sentence?

If it's embedded related software engineering, it goes in [EE].

Discussions about a Delphi app you are writing to connect to your
embedded processor are definitely [EE] - you are writing a program.

Discussions about Bray's Terminal connecting to your embedded processor
are barely [EE] even though it's an application, but you are solving a
problem related to interfacing the two.

If you are writing a web app that interfaces to hardware you made, it's
[EE] if you are discussing the interfacing part (either hardware or
software).

If you are writing a web app for e-commerce, it's not [EE].

If it's about Visio or backup software, it's not [EE].

Adding a software engineering tag doesn't make sense to me. Non-embedded
software seems [OT] because it's incidental to the piclist - people who
do software engineering that isn't embedded related have other hangouts
for that stuff more suited to it than the piclist.


Cheerful regards,

Bob



On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:02:53 +1200, "Apptech" <spam_OUTapptechTakeThisOuTspamparadise.net.nz>
said:
{Quote hidden}

> --

2008\07\14@204114 by Bob Ammerman

picon face
> Adding a software engineering tag doesn't make sense to me. Non-embedded
> software seems [OT] because it's incidental to the piclist - people who
> do software engineering that isn't embedded related have other hangouts
> for that stuff more suited to it than the piclist.
>
>
> Cheerful regards,
>
> Bob

Sounds more than good to me.

I withdraw my (not really made as such) request for another tag :-)

I just got my dander up when it looked like the peripheral software topics
were going to be treated differently from the peripheral hardware topics.

So I read [EE] as 'embedded engineering', *NOT* 'electrical engineering'

--- Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems

2008\07\15@085751 by olin piclist

face picon face
Bob Ammerman wrote:
> So I read [EE] as 'embedded engineering', *NOT* 'electrical
> engineering'

Right, which is why I suggest the name be changed to EMB to avoid this
confusion.  The EE tag is now in its third definition.  Most people looking
at it casually would naturally assume Electrical Engineering, which is now
incorrect.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\07\15@092000 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> Bob Ammerman wrote:
>> So I read [EE] as 'embedded engineering', *NOT*
>> 'electrical
>> engineering'

> Right, which is why I suggest the name be changed to EMB
> to avoid this
> confusion.  The EE tag is now in its third definition.
> Most people looking
> at it casually would naturally assume Electrical
> Engineering, which is now
> incorrect.

I disagree, not surprisingly :-).
People can read it as embedded engineering if it fits their
paradigms better. Others as electrical engineering. Both
will tend to work OK when most people settle into knowing
what it is generally about. It's hardly rocket science. If
it has PICs it's PIC. If Bob doesn't like it it's TECH.
Sounds easy to me :-).

Slightly more seriously, "embedded engineering" is a
specialist term which may fit the mental filters of people
to whom embedded engineering is more natural than breathing,
BUT the term "electrical engineering" is liable to resonate
with a far wider crowd. If someone is plugging transistors
into a breadboard or soldering things on "vero" / vector /
strip board and want to talk about them then EE is where the
talking belongs. To call that embedded engineering is to
take an elitist approach and suggest that if it hasn't got a
processor in it then it doesn't belong.  Which MAY be what
eg Olin intends, but it's a rather greater jump than I
suspect most minds construed when it was suggested that EE
be "purified".


       Russell

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...