Denny Esterline email (remove spam text)
My two cents...
"Embedded" is part of something greater. A consumer never goes to the store
and buys an "embedded computer". They buy a *product* that happens to have
an embedded computer in it.
It might be the smallest 10F/ATtiny as an LED flasher in a toothbrush
handle or it might be as complex as a car. Consumers don't go to the car
dealer and ask to see the newest models because they heard the engine
control module is built with an octo-core super processor now with 17 TB of
Cell phones are an interesting example here. A decade or so ago (perhaps
two, time flies), people bought devices that could make a phone call. The
internal architecture was largely irrelevant and mostly ignored. Now
they're buying something that is a more general purpose computing platform
with the intent of running far more diverse programs. As such the internal
architecture is more involved in the discussion.
I think the idea of working in a "resource constrained" system is a natural
outgrowth of the business of volume production of products. Unless it's a
high-volume product, saving a penny per unit at the expense of another
month of engineering time is never going to be profitable. "Resource
constrained" is a math problem: [DevCost + (UnitCost * Quantity)] With the
drop in cost of more capable silicon and the improvement in development
tools, that math changes all the time.
So, I think "embedded" is the right term, but the definition may have been
a bit mangled through the years.
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Clint Jay <gmail.com> wrote: cjaysharp
-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
In reply to: <CAN7ULzQnbx7-wO=B-jU=rFrZy1op+H9phak4UPU-Qsmz9jgOJg@mail.gmail.com>
See also: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=embedded
You must be a member of the
piclist mailing list
(not only a www.piclist.com member) to post to the