hardware geeks and software geeks?

<snip>


I think I'm already bored.

-- Gordon

"mlw" wrote

And full of reason... my motto: don't push the limits, especially on Fridays
:-)

Isn't a comment like mine accepted in Usenet? I'm responding directly to
your question. My opinion is that you've over-posted on this already,
and the subject is old.

-- Gordon

Accepted, and it made me laugh.

Thanks,

Rich

Great! I'll be here through the weekend. Next week I open at the Comedy
Club in Tropicana! <g>

-- Gordon

You are just a nasty person aren't you? If you don't like my topics or
posts, then, by all means, please ignore them.

You may have an opinion about my actions, which by the way are none of your
concern, but it is of no consequence to me.

I don't think I'm being nasty by suggesting that you are reopening the
same discussion to the point of being annoying. Enough already! You're
turning this group into your own soapbox, and a centerpoint for
yourself.

I do realize this is something of a habit for you, considering your
infamy in other groups, but it would be nice to keep the endless and
senseless debates to a minimum here. Ordinarily this has been a nice
place to hang out.

-- Gordon

Maybe you are just having a bad day, but this is really uncalled for.


You should take your own advice.

-Brian

What would you call his behavior? Certainly rude.


Well, I did start the thread, it is pretty hard to ignore.

Now you're just being silly. I said that (and you can use my name)
precisely because I AM a software guy. A design that sticks a PC on
wheels doesn't buy me anything, because it doesn't lessen the amount of
hardware work I have to do on the platform to make it sufficiently
useful for me.

One of the reasons, by the way, to use DSPs and microcontrollers is to
get rid of the need for a b*ttload of discrete hardware, and replace it
with code.

But as has been noted elsewhere, this really *is* getting boring. I'm
off for a beer.

--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)

Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html

Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!

mmmm

Is that a can of spaghetti I can see...?

|-]

Cheers

Dale

As in spaghetti code? No mine.

No..as in something that LOKKS  like a can of spaghetti when OPENED...

|-]

OK I give in..... a can of spaghetti ~ = a can of worms ...............

Wink wink. nudge nudge say no more...say no more

|-]

Cheers

Dale

I consider myself more of a software guy, but I'm more interested in
designing with microcontrollers than a full blown PC. Partially because
I'm interested in small-scale applications. At some point I would like
to build something large, like an autonomous Power Wheels. In that case
I think I might go the PC route.

I think the choice of tool has more to do with the application at hand
and the design requirements than it does the mindset of the designer. At
least it *should*.

--
|\/|  /|  |2  |<
mehaase(at)sas(dot)upenn(dot)edu

Well, that's understandable.


Then you should take a look at my site, I am doing pretty much that. I'm
just starting but I've got the beast moving. I'm going to supply source and
diagrams.

http://64.46.156.80/robot/



Well, within the realm of preference, the point of this thread was, IMHO, a
predilection of hardware geeks to do everything in separate hardware
modules, and software geeks to do things in software.

Well, it is your thread, so who else could say what the point of this
thread was.

However, I hope you are not surprized to find I do not agree with your
conclusion. I don't think the choice between doing software on a PC vs.
doing software on a micro (software vs. software) makes one software
oriented or hardware oriented, is a bit non sequitur.

I think you have to assume the split is simply PC vs. micro. And the
difference there is living under an operating system vs. living
independently of others preordained control. So the split is more
correctly a reflection of ones life view and even perhaps political view
(e.g. socialist vs. libertarian) being the more appropraite split than
hardware or software orientation.

I think the hardware or software approach is pretty well defined by
BEAM, and the issue of all hardware with no programmable anything,  vs
all forms of micros with software for control.

--
Randy M. Dumse

Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear.

Are there different names for different types of robots?  The term
robot is so vauge.  If there was one name for pc controlled robots and
one for microcontrolled robots there would be less confusion and
eliminate confusion or debate over the two and over which is really a
robot and better, etc.  Maybe call them high processing and low
processing robots?  Or better names.