Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • Replies 12 replies
  • Subscribers 452 subscribers
  • Views 658 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related

Does the Embedded Group Need A Better Definition?

rscasny

As I've indicated to some members, part of my job at element14 (besides RoadTests, Webinars, Design Challenges) is to monitor the content in various groups to ensure we are covering topics of interest to our members or to find interesting member-content to highlight or promote (or even to find exceptional writers.)

 

I often look at the Embedded group. I'm wondering if it needs better definition. We say it is focused on "microcontrollers, programmable logic, memory, DSP and controllers." Each of these are a big area unto themselves.

 

If anyone has any thoughts on this, please offer them in the comments below.

 

Thanks.

 

Randall

Parents

  • I can't speak for others, but this category and terminology was never used where I went to school nor anyplace I ever worked. It has certainly garnered a place as a catch-all category even with big conferences using it in their name, but lay-people wouldn't have a clue to its significance and I almost never use the term embedded when discussing applications that would fall into this category. If I was publishing a blog describing an embedded application, I would typically look for a more specific group to attach it to.

    I have nothing against having it as a catch-all group category on the forum, it probably should be there, I just don't hang out in that group, even though much of what I do is embedded.

    I always assumed the Topics (groups) were chosen for their commercial significance to element14 - I don't hang out in any of them - I just read all the blog posts and discussions  from all groups.

  • in reply to dougw

    I agree with Douglas.

     

    Embedded was a term used in the 1980's but it is really meaningless with today's options.

     

    I would go with something like Makerspace Electronics to better define the focus on using electronics of all types for builds.

     

    DAB

  • in reply to DAB

    Embedded computers or computing used to mean computers embedded into a system to such an extent that the computer was either not apparent or not important to the user of the system:

     

    see  Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_system

    An embedded system is a computer system with a dedicated function within a larger mechanical or electrical system, often with real-time computing constraints.[1][2] It is embedded as part of a complete device often including hardware and mechanical parts. Embedded systems control many devices in common use today.[3] Ninety-eight percent of all microprocessors are manufactured as components of embedded systems.[4]

     

    The term is more broadly used now but I think it is still relevant, I interpret "Embedded" as a shortening of "Embedded Computing", but perhaps that's not as universal as I thought.

     

    I don't feel that Makerspace Electronics is the same thing - the "Maker" thing has, to me at least, more social/political overtones and is less of a technology definition.

     

    Finally, I'm with Douglas on this, I look at stuff that seems interesting - people often post in the wrong group anyway.

     

    MK

  • in reply to DAB

    DAB wrote:

     

    Embedded was a term used in the 1980's but it is really meaningless with today's options.

    I guess its dependant on the types of companies you've been working in. For me, "Embedded" is a term that has always been used extensively in the places I have worked and still is. For example, our software teams are usually split into the "Applications" team which are responsible for writing UI applications which run on standard PC's, and the "Embedded Software" teams who deal with all the OS and software running on "non desktop" platforms as well as the DSP code running on those platforms. I guess maybe the Embedded group could do with having some sub categories and maybe some descriptions explaining what those categories are intended to represent?

     

    Best Regards,

     

    Rachael

  • in reply to rachaelp

    Rachael,

     

    Thanks for the comment. The term definitely encompasses several sub-categories. I think we need to explain it better.

     

    Randall

  • in reply to rscasny

    I'm a fan of a good explanation and few if no subgroups.

    I have two reasons image for that:

    - subgroups create more confusion than solution.

    - blogs in subgroups don't get views, and comments are mostly from the in-crowd.

     

    That's all. I'll get my coat image

Reply Children