hardware geeks and software geeks?

In my post "OS level programming vs microcontrollers," I think I see a trend. One "spirited" post write this: " putting a pc on a wheeled platform is a trivial undertaking."

This quote sums up a lot. Putting a "pc on a wheeled platform" and making it do something interesting is *not* trivial. It *is* electrically trivial, but the software involved is *not* trivial.

The guys that would do their robot with many small PICS tend to be hardware geeks that don't like software all the much.

The guys that would do their robot with a single bigger PC based computer tend more to be software geeks.

What do you think?

And rude.

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

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.

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!

-- 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

mmmm

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

|-]

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*.

What would you call his behavior? Certainly rude.

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

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.

As in spaghetti code? No mine.

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

|-]

People that build robots from scratch either have an interest in different disciplines or have a budget to stick to. We all have different reasons/goals/interests but robotics is the common theme.

Why try to stereotype at all?

Would you build a 1inch cubed sumo bot from a PC? Would you build a voice controlled, voice recognising, image recognising, drink serving, all singing all dancing robot from an

I'm glad you started the discussion about using PC's as robot controllers but when someone talks too much about the same subject then others become bored and tend to ignore them.

I think you have quite a bit to add to this group but the odd change in subject would be nice.

Cheers.

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.

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.