Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #27080 > unrolled thread

Engineering degree for embedded systems

Back to article view | Back to comp.arch.embedded

Contents

  Engineering degree for embedded systems "hogwarts" <122707@EmbeddedRelated> - 2017-07-27 07:35 -0500
    Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Stef <stef33d@yahooI-N-V-A-L-I-D.com.invalid> - 2017-07-27 15:25 +0200
      Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-07-30 12:05 -0400
        Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-07-30 19:05 +0100
          Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-08-01 08:55 -0400
            Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-08-01 14:23 +0100
              Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-08-03 11:03 -0400
                Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-08-06 10:35 +0100
                  Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-08-06 14:40 +0100
                    Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 12:51 -0400
                      Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-08-06 20:13 +0100
                        Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 19:21 -0400
                          Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-08-07 12:40 -0400
                            Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 15:18 -0400
                              Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-08-07 15:27 -0400
                                Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 16:47 -0400
                                  Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-08-07 17:30 -0400
                                    Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 18:35 -0400
                                      Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-08-07 18:56 -0400
                                        Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 19:02 -0400
                                          Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-08-07 19:08 -0400
                                            Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2017-08-08 01:30 +0200
                                              Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-08-07 19:32 -0400
                                            Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 19:53 -0400
                                              Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-08-07 20:02 -0400
                                          Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-08-07 23:49 +0000
                                            Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-08-07 20:07 -0400
                                        Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-08-08 08:00 +0100
                        Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-08-07 01:21 -0400
                  Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-08-06 17:15 +0300
                    Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-08-06 20:21 +0100
                      Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-08-07 10:35 +0300
                        Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-08-07 12:54 +0200
                      Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-08-07 12:34 +0200
                    Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-08-07 12:43 -0400
                  Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 12:50 -0400
                  Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-08-07 12:36 -0400
                    Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-08-07 18:40 +0100
                      Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-08-08 10:23 +0200
                        Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-08-08 09:46 +0100
                          Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-08-08 11:26 +0200
                            Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-08-08 11:09 +0100
                              Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-08-08 12:56 +0200
                                Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-08-08 15:56 +0100
                                  Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-08-08 17:11 +0200
                                    Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-08-08 16:33 +0100
                                    Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-08-08 21:07 +0300
                                      Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-08-09 10:03 +0200
                                        Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-08-10 14:30 +0300
                                          Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-08-10 15:11 +0200
                                            Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-08-16 18:39 -0400
                                              Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-08-17 09:37 +0200
                                                Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-08-17 08:24 -0400
                                                  Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-08-17 16:06 +0200
                                                    Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-08-17 12:15 -0400
                                                      Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-08-18 14:45 +0200
                                                        Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-08-25 09:51 -0400
            Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-08-01 20:46 -0500
              Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-08-02 09:30 +0200
                Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-08-05 15:11 -0500
                Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-08-08 00:22 -0700
                  Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-08-08 08:36 +0100
                  Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-08-08 12:37 +0200
    Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems "tim..." <tims_new_home@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-27 17:46 +0100
      Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-07-27 16:54 +0000
        Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems "tim..." <tims_new_home@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-27 19:57 +0100
    Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Frank Miles <fpm@u.washington.edu> - 2017-07-27 16:58 +0000
      Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2017-07-28 00:43 +0100
      Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2017-07-30 15:26 -0700
    Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2017-07-27 23:45 +0000
    Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2017-08-03 19:50 +0200
      Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-08-05 15:20 -0500
        Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-08-06 09:17 +0300
          Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems "tim..." <tims_new_home@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-06 10:12 +0100
            Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-08-06 13:19 +0300
            Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-08-06 09:59 -0500
              Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems "tim..." <tims_new_home@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-06 18:06 +0100
                Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 21:31 -0400
                  Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems "tim..." <tims_new_home@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-07 09:32 +0100
          Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-08-06 09:53 -0500
            Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-08-07 10:59 +0300
              Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-08-07 20:09 -0500
                Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-08-08 21:31 +0300
          Re: Engineering degree for embedded systems Stef <stef33d@yahooI-N-V-A-L-I-D.com.invalid> - 2017-08-21 11:28 +0200

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#27151

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> all bugs - be it UB, overflows, misunderstandings about the
> specifications, mistakes in the specifications, incorrect algorithms,
> incorrect functions - whatever.  UB is not special in that way.

Yes UB is special.  All those non-UB bugs you mention will have a
defined behaviour that just isn't the behaviour that you wanted.  UB, as
the name implies, has no defined behaviour at all: anything can happen,
including the proverbial nasal demons.

> And what do you mean by "this becomes political" ?

I can't speak for Les, but guaranteeing C programs to be free of UB is
so difficult that one can debate whether writing complex critical
programs in C is morally irresponsible.  That type of debate tends to
take on a political flavor like PC vs Mac, Emacs vs Vi, and other
similar burning issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27152

On 08/08/17 08:22, Paul Rubin wrote:
> I can't speak for Les, but guaranteeing C programs to be free of UB is
> so difficult that one can debate whether writing complex critical
> programs in C is morally irresponsible.  That type of debate tends to
> take on a political flavor like PC vs Mac, Emacs vs Vi, and other
> similar burning issues.

Yes, in all respects.

And more people /think/ they can avoid UB than
can actually achieve that nirvana. That's
dangerous Dunning-Krueger territory.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27157

On 08/08/17 09:22, Paul Rubin wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> all bugs - be it UB, overflows, misunderstandings about the
>> specifications, mistakes in the specifications, incorrect algorithms,
>> incorrect functions - whatever.  UB is not special in that way.
> 
> Yes UB is special.  All those non-UB bugs you mention will have a
> defined behaviour that just isn't the behaviour that you wanted.  UB, as
> the name implies, has no defined behaviour at all: anything can happen,
> including the proverbial nasal demons.

Bugs are problems, no matter whether they have defined behaviour or
undefined behaviour.  But it is sometimes possible to limit the damage
caused by a bug, and it can certainly be possible to make it easier or
harder to detect.

The real question is, would it help to give a definition to typical C
"undefined behaviour" like signed integer overflows or access outside of
array bounds?

Let's take the first case - signed integer overflows.  If you want to
give a defined behaviour, you pick one of several mechanisms.  You could
use two's complement wraparound.  You could use saturated arithmetic.
You could use "trap representations" - like NaN in floating point.  You
could have an exception mechanism like C++.  You could have an error
handler mechanism.  You could have a software interrupt or trap.

Giving a defined "ordinary" behaviour like wrapping would be simple and
appear efficient.  However, it would mean that the compiler would be
unable to spot problems at compile time (the best time to spot bugs!),
and it would stop the compiler from a number of optimisations that let
the programmer write simple, clear code while relying on the compiler to
generate good results.

Any kind of trap or error handler would necessitate a good deal of extra
run-time costs, and negate even more optimisations.  The compiler could
not even simplify "x + y - y" to "x" because "x + y" might overflow.

It is usually a simple matter for a programmer to avoid signed integer
overflow.  Common methods include switching to unsigned integers, or
simply increasing the size of the integer types.

Debugging tools can help spot problems, such as the "sanitizers" in gcc
and clang, but these are of limited use in embedded systems.


Array bound checking would also involve a good deal of run-time
overhead, as well as re-writing of C code (since you would need to track
bounds as well as pointers).  And what do you do when you have found an
error?


C is like a chainsaw.  It is very powerful, and lets you do a lot of
work quickly - but it is also dangerous if you don't know what you are
doing.  Remember, however, that no matter how safe and idiot-proof your
tree-cutting equipment is, you are still at risk from the falling tree.

> 
>> And what do you mean by "this becomes political" ?
> 
> I can't speak for Les, but guaranteeing C programs to be free of UB is
> so difficult that one can debate whether writing complex critical
> programs in C is morally irresponsible.  That type of debate tends to
> take on a political flavor like PC vs Mac, Emacs vs Vi, and other
> similar burning issues.
> 

I would certainly agree that a good deal of code that is written in C,
should have been written in other languages.  It is not the right tool
for every job.  But it /is/ the right tool for many jobs - and UB is
part of what makes it the right tool.  However, you need to understand
what UB is, how to avoid it, and how the concept can be an advantage.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27082

"hogwarts" <122707@EmbeddedRelated> wrote in message 
news:idSdncV7T_2fQ-TEnZ2dnUU7-VHNnZ2d@giganews.com...
> I am applying for university right now and I am wondering which
> engineering degree is better for working on embedded systems and IOT:
> "Computer engineering" vs "electronics and communication engineering" also
> a specific university offers "computer and communication engineering" I
> know that having any of those I can get into IoT but which would be better
> for the field?

I don't think that you can see IoT as a branch of the industry that requires 
anything special at entry level

A junior engineering role on an embedded project is probably not going to be 
expected to deal with any of the security issues (hell there are a lot of 
companies investigating adding IoT functionality to their products that 
don't have principle engineers working on that), so it just looks like any 
other embedded project at that level of experience

you just have to target your job hunt to the relevant companies at 
graduation time

so IME any EE or engineering biased CS degree will do

tim




 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27083

On 2017-07-27, tim... <tims_new_home@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> "hogwarts" <122707@EmbeddedRelated> wrote in message 
> news:idSdncV7T_2fQ-TEnZ2dnUU7-VHNnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> I am applying for university right now and I am wondering which
>> engineering degree is better for working on embedded systems and IOT:
>> "Computer engineering" vs "electronics and communication engineering" also
>> a specific university offers "computer and communication engineering" I
>> know that having any of those I can get into IoT but which would be better
>> for the field?
>
> I don't think that you can see IoT as a branch of the industry that requires 
> anything special at entry level
>
> A junior engineering role on an embedded project is probably not going to be 
> expected to deal with any of the security issues

AFAICT, nobody at any level in IoT is expected to deal with any of the
security issues.  Or deal with making products do something useful,
for that matter.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Of course, you
                                  at               UNDERSTAND about the PLAIDS
                              gmail.com            in the SPIN CYCLE --

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27085

"Grant Edwards" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:old5r9$sau$1@reader2.panix.com...
> On 2017-07-27, tim... <tims_new_home@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "hogwarts" <122707@EmbeddedRelated> wrote in message
>> news:idSdncV7T_2fQ-TEnZ2dnUU7-VHNnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> I am applying for university right now and I am wondering which
>>> engineering degree is better for working on embedded systems and IOT:
>>> "Computer engineering" vs "electronics and communication engineering" 
>>> also
>>> a specific university offers "computer and communication engineering" I
>>> know that having any of those I can get into IoT but which would be 
>>> better
>>> for the field?
>>
>> I don't think that you can see IoT as a branch of the industry that 
>> requires
>> anything special at entry level
>>
>> A junior engineering role on an embedded project is probably not going to 
>> be
>> expected to deal with any of the security issues
>
> AFAICT, nobody at any level in IoT is expected to deal with any of the
> security issues.

I thought that I said that

> Or deal with making products do something useful,
> for that matter.

harsh

the early IoT proposals based upon mesh systems seem to have created some 
useful products, street light management for example

tim



 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27084

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 07:35:14 -0500, hogwarts wrote:

> I am applying for university right now and I am wondering which
> engineering degree is better for working on embedded systems and IOT:
> "Computer engineering" vs "electronics and communication engineering" also
> a specific university offers "computer and communication engineering" I
> know that having any of those I can get into IoT but which would be better
> for the field?
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------
> Posted through http://www.EmbeddedRelated.com

I bet that these programs have much overlap.  You should look at the
details of what courses are standard and what are electives, and see
what appeals to you.

This may be antithetical to some, but I think time at a University
should mostly be on the "theoretical" side.  Primarily it's because
picking up that stuff on your own, later, is relatively hard to do.
It's also more likely to have lasting value, at least in comparison
to learning the language or platform de jour.

By all means plan on doing more "practical" work on your own, during
your educational time.  These days there are many avenues for that.

Worst case - you make a choice that later seems wrong - you should
be able to transfer at fairly low time/expense cost.

Best wishes!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27086

Frank Miles <fpm@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> I bet that these programs have much overlap.  You should look at the
> details of what courses are standard and what are electives, and see
> what appeals to you.

It's probably worth finding out what the routes are: if you decide to do one
programme, are you stuck with that or can you take courses that lead in a
different direction?  Many people find their strengths are in different
places than they expected.

> This may be antithetical to some, but I think time at a University
> should mostly be on the "theoretical" side.  Primarily it's because
> picking up that stuff on your own, later, is relatively hard to do.
> It's also more likely to have lasting value, at least in comparison
> to learning the language or platform de jour.
> 
> By all means plan on doing more "practical" work on your own, during
> your educational time.  These days there are many avenues for that.

I'd agree with that - something like 'IoT' is likely to be very different in
4-5 years time when you finish, in terms of the tools and popular platforms. 
So it's better to have a grounding and then keep up with the platform du
jour as the icing on top.

The other aspect is good engineering practices: writing clean code, good
documentation, using tools like version control appropriately, etc.  I'd
suggest that's a skill that isn't well taught in big groups (one instructor,
500 students).  It's better to do it either on the job (eg internships) or
other environments where you might receive mentoring, eg open source
projects.  Similiarly for practical skills like soldering, assembly, etc -
to some degree you can pick those up from YouTube, or else you need someone
sitting next to you telling you what you did wrong.

> Worst case - you make a choice that later seems wrong - you should
> be able to transfer at fairly low time/expense cost.

Also don't be afraid to look over the wall at other disciplines -
occasionally having a CS/biology or EE/psychology or whatever crossover can
come in very handy.  Or closer to home EE/CS, EE/mechE, EE/power, EE/physics
or similar combinations.

Theo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27091

On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 12:02:36 PM UTC-5, cassiope wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 07:35:14 -0500, hogwarts wrote:
> 
> > I am applying for university right now and I am wondering which
> > engineering degree is better for working on embedded systems and IOT:
> > "Computer engineering" vs "electronics and communication engineering" also
> > a specific university offers "computer and communication engineering" I
> > know that having any of those I can get into IoT but which would be better
> > for the field?
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------
> > Posted through http://www.EmbeddedRelated.com
> 
> I bet that these programs have much overlap.  You should look at the
> details of what courses are standard and what are electives, and see
> what appeals to you.
> 
> This may be antithetical to some, but I think time at a University
> should mostly be on the "theoretical" side.  Primarily it's because
> picking up that stuff on your own, later, is relatively hard to do.
> It's also more likely to have lasting value, at least in comparison
> to learning the language or platform de jour.
> 
> By all means plan on doing more "practical" work on your own, during
> your educational time.  These days there are many avenues for that.
> 
> Worst case - you make a choice that later seems wrong - you should
> be able to transfer at fairly low time/expense cost.
> 
> Best wishes!

Once you get an EE job, the second part of your education starts:
In my case learning all the chips and parts for circuit design (which is steered in the direction of what you anticipate you will need for your employer's work).
The manufacturers provide application notes that very good at reinforcing and extending your college knowledge base. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27087

On 07/27/17 12:35, hogwarts wrote:
> I am applying for university right now and I am wondering which
> engineering degree is better for working on embedded systems and IOT:
> "Computer engineering" vs "electronics and communication engineering" also
> a specific university offers "computer and communication engineering" I
> know that having any of those I can get into IoT but which would be better
> for the field?
>

I would choose the electronics degree first, as more likely to keep you
in work rather than computer science, which for embedded work is a
subset that depends on electronics. It will also stretch you more in
math terms than comp sci alone.

Buy the books on comp sci as well, particularly os theory, algorithms
and data structures. Learn that in your spare time and find the books
s/hand on ABE books or Amazon.

Good luck, a worthwhile career and plenty of scope for innovative design
and creativity...

Chris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27104

Am 27.07.2017 um 14:35 schrieb hogwarts:
> I am applying for university right now and I am wondering which
> engineering degree is better for working on embedded systems and IOT:
> "Computer engineering" vs "electronics and communication engineering" also
> a specific university offers "computer and communication engineering" I
> know that having any of those I can get into IoT but which would be better
> for the field?

Odds are this "field" will either have vanished completely (and maybe 
deservedly), or have changed beyond recognition in the time from now to 
when you finish your degree.  Betting several years of your life (and 
depending on your country's style of doing things, up to tens of 
thousands of dollars on top) on that kind of hunch is rarely advisable.

This is an easy mistake to make, and there are gazillions of freshmen 
who make it every year.  It causes the same "pork cycles" of bubbles and 
crashes in the education and job markets as are observed in the general 
economy, and for much the same reason, too.

One of the worst examples in recent history was in 2001, when the very 
public "dot-com" bubble drove millions of youngsters worldwide to the 
belief that they absolutely needed to study computer science _now_, to 
get on the ball early.  So for a year or two there were upward of 4 
times as many freshmen in CS courses as usual, the vast majority of 
which were clearly in entirely the wrong place.  And it showed. 
Failures and drop-out rates shot through the roof, and those relatively 
few "extra" graduates who actually made it onto the job market did so 
years _after_ the bubble had burst, explosively.  Overall, the whole 
episode was just a colossal waste of hopes, life-time, money and other 
things.

So my advice is: do your best to forget about any and all current trends 
and hypes in the economy when you make decisions about your university 
studies.  At best, they're a pointless distraction; at worst they'll 
mislead you into a field of work you hate for the rest of your life, 
where you'll be pitted against naturals who like doing it, and are 
generally better at it, too.

The silly number of supposedly different degrees offered in many 
countries these days don't help, either.  Nowadays, wherever there's a 
particular combination of testable skills that some university believes 
will be useful to more than 40 people in the world, total, they'll feel 
obliged to invent a name for that precise combination of skills and set 
up a course programme to crank out bachelors of it.  Of course, the 
Universities' predictions about future needs of the job market aren't 
really that much more reliable than anyone's.  And so the pork cycle 
rolls on.

And they don't even start to think about how anybody is supposed to make 
an informed decision between such ultra-specialized programmes.  I'm 
convinced it's impossible.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27106

Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
> Am 27.07.2017 um 14:35 schrieb hogwarts:
<snip>
> And so the pork cycle rolls on.
>

That's a great way to put it.

> And they don't even start to think about how anybody is supposed to
> make an informed decision between such ultra-specialized programmes.
> I'm convinced it's impossible.

IMO, a reputable EE programme is still probably the best way. CS
programs still vary too much; CS may or may not be a second-class
setup in many universities.

I get the feeling that *analog* engineers still have a stable job
base because it's much harder to fake that. It's somewhat harder.

And I'd warn the OP against specifically targeting IoT. It's a big
bubble. People win in bubbles but it's not likely you will be among
them.

Just be aware that people are uniformly terrible at hiring in tech,
so networking is key.

-- 
Les Cargill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27107

On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 15:20:40 -0500, Les Cargill
<lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:

>Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
>> Am 27.07.2017 um 14:35 schrieb hogwarts:
><snip>
>> And so the pork cycle rolls on.
>>
>
>That's a great way to put it.
>
>> And they don't even start to think about how anybody is supposed to
>> make an informed decision between such ultra-specialized programmes.
>> I'm convinced it's impossible.
>
>IMO, a reputable EE programme is still probably the best way. CS
>programs still vary too much; CS may or may not be a second-class
>setup in many universities.
>
>I get the feeling that *analog* engineers still have a stable job
>base because it's much harder to fake that. It's somewhat harder.
>
>And I'd warn the OP against specifically targeting IoT. It's a big
>bubble. People win in bubbles but it's not likely you will be among
>them.

I have often wondered what this IoT hype is all about. It seems to be
very similar to the PLC (Programmable Logic Controller) used for
decades. You need to do some programming but as equally important
interface to he external world (sensors, relay controls and
communication to other devices). 

These days, the programmable devices are just smaller, _much_ cheaper
and have much better performance than a PLC one or two decades ago.

Take a look at universities having industrial automation courses and
check what topics are included relevant to PLCs. Select these subjects
at your local university. You might not need process control theory
for simple IoT :-)

Analog electronics is important e.g. for interfacing exotic sensors or
controlling equally odd devices as well as protecting I/O against
overvoltage and ground potential issues. Understanding about line
voltage issues and line wiring can be a question of life and death.

>Just be aware that people are uniformly terrible at hiring in tech,
>so networking is key.

These days much jobs are outsourced to cheaper countries, so you might
concentrate on skills that are harder to outsource.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27108

<upsidedown@downunder.com> wrote in message 
news:23ddoch8v472cpj59u4f53dta9nau5ksuf@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 15:20:40 -0500, Les Cargill
> <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>>Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
>>> Am 27.07.2017 um 14:35 schrieb hogwarts:
>><snip>
>>> And so the pork cycle rolls on.
>>>
>>
>>That's a great way to put it.
>>
>>> And they don't even start to think about how anybody is supposed to
>>> make an informed decision between such ultra-specialized programmes.
>>> I'm convinced it's impossible.
>>
>>IMO, a reputable EE programme is still probably the best way. CS
>>programs still vary too much; CS may or may not be a second-class
>>setup in many universities.
>>
>>I get the feeling that *analog* engineers still have a stable job
>>base because it's much harder to fake that. It's somewhat harder.
>>
>>And I'd warn the OP against specifically targeting IoT. It's a big
>>bubble. People win in bubbles but it's not likely you will be among
>>them.
>
> I have often wondered what this IoT hype is all about. It seems to be
> very similar to the PLC (Programmable Logic Controller) used for
> decades.

don't think so

the IoT hype is all about marketing benefits - selling consumers extra 
features (that they never knew they ever wanted and probably don't need)

using PLC's is an engineering benefit (or not)

tim



 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27110

On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 10:12:36 +0100, "tim..." <tims_new_home@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>
><upsidedown@downunder.com> wrote in message 
>news:23ddoch8v472cpj59u4f53dta9nau5ksuf@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 15:20:40 -0500, Les Cargill
>> <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
>>>> Am 27.07.2017 um 14:35 schrieb hogwarts:
>>><snip>
>>>> And so the pork cycle rolls on.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's a great way to put it.
>>>
>>>> And they don't even start to think about how anybody is supposed to
>>>> make an informed decision between such ultra-specialized programmes.
>>>> I'm convinced it's impossible.
>>>
>>>IMO, a reputable EE programme is still probably the best way. CS
>>>programs still vary too much; CS may or may not be a second-class
>>>setup in many universities.
>>>
>>>I get the feeling that *analog* engineers still have a stable job
>>>base because it's much harder to fake that. It's somewhat harder.
>>>
>>>And I'd warn the OP against specifically targeting IoT. It's a big
>>>bubble. People win in bubbles but it's not likely you will be among
>>>them.
>>
>> I have often wondered what this IoT hype is all about. It seems to be
>> very similar to the PLC (Programmable Logic Controller) used for
>> decades.
>
>don't think so
>
>the IoT hype is all about marketing benefits - selling consumers extra 
>features (that they never knew they ever wanted and probably don't need)

Yes, this seems to be the main motivation. 

>using PLC's is an engineering benefit (or not)

The greatly reduced hardware cost (both processing power and
Ethernet/WLAN communication) has made it possible to just handle a
single signal (or a small set of related I/O signals) in a dedicated
hardware for each signal. Thus the controlling "IoT" device could read
a measurement and control an actuator in a closed loop and receive a
setpoint from the network. 

This means that the controlling device can be moved much closer to the
actuator, simplifying interfacing (not too much worrying about
interference). Taking this even further, this allows integrating the
controller into the actual device itself such as a hydraulic valve
(mechatronics). Just provide power and an Ethernet condition and off
you go. Of course, the environment requirements for such integrated
products can be quite harsh. 

Anyway, with most of the intelligence moved down to the actual device
reduces the need for PLC systems, so some PC based control room
programs can directly control those intelligent mechatronics units.

Anyway, if the "IoT" device is moved inside the actual actuator etc.
device, similar skills are needed to interface to the input sensor
signals as well as controlling actuators as in the case of external
IoT controllers. With everything integrated into the same case, some
knowledge of thermal design will also help.

While some courses in computer science is useful, IMHO, spending too
much time on CS might not be that productive.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27114

tim... wrote:
>
>
> <upsidedown@downunder.com> wrote in message
> news:23ddoch8v472cpj59u4f53dta9nau5ksuf@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 15:20:40 -0500, Les Cargill
>> <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
>>>> Am 27.07.2017 um 14:35 schrieb hogwarts:
>>> <snip>
>>>> And so the pork cycle rolls on.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's a great way to put it.
>>>
>>>> And they don't even start to think about how anybody is
>>>> supposed to make an informed decision between such
>>>> ultra-specialized programmes. I'm convinced it's impossible.
>>>
>>> IMO, a reputable EE programme is still probably the best way. CS
>>> programs still vary too much; CS may or may not be a
>>> second-class setup in many universities.
>>>
>>> I get the feeling that *analog* engineers still have a stable
>>> job base because it's much harder to fake that. It's somewhat
>>> harder.
>>>
>>> And I'd warn the OP against specifically targeting IoT. It's a
>>> big bubble. People win in bubbles but it's not likely you will be
>>> among them.
>>
>> I have often wondered what this IoT hype is all about. It seems to
>> be very similar to the PLC (Programmable Logic Controller) used
>> for decades.
>
> don't think so
>
> the IoT hype is all about marketing benefits - selling consumers
> extra features (that they never knew they ever wanted and probably
> don't need)
>

The IoT hype that relates to people trying to get funding for things
like Internet enabled juicers might be more frothy than the potential
for replacing PLCs with hardware and software that comes from the
IoT/Maker space.

> using PLC's is an engineering benefit (or not)
>

It's not difficult to get beyond the capability of many PLCs. The
highly capable ones ( like NI) tend to be "hangar queens" - they're not
mechanically rugged.

> tim
>
>
>
>
>
-- 
Les Cargill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27117

"Les Cargill" <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote in message 
news:om7afv$siu$1@dont-email.me...
> tim... wrote:
>>
>>
>> <upsidedown@downunder.com> wrote in message
>> news:23ddoch8v472cpj59u4f53dta9nau5ksuf@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 15:20:40 -0500, Les Cargill
>>> <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
>>>>> Am 27.07.2017 um 14:35 schrieb hogwarts:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> And so the pork cycle rolls on.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's a great way to put it.
>>>>
>>>>> And they don't even start to think about how anybody is
>>>>> supposed to make an informed decision between such
>>>>> ultra-specialized programmes. I'm convinced it's impossible.
>>>>
>>>> IMO, a reputable EE programme is still probably the best way. CS
>>>> programs still vary too much; CS may or may not be a
>>>> second-class setup in many universities.
>>>>
>>>> I get the feeling that *analog* engineers still have a stable
>>>> job base because it's much harder to fake that. It's somewhat
>>>> harder.
>>>>
>>>> And I'd warn the OP against specifically targeting IoT. It's a
>>>> big bubble. People win in bubbles but it's not likely you will be
>>>> among them.
>>>
>>> I have often wondered what this IoT hype is all about. It seems to
>>> be very similar to the PLC (Programmable Logic Controller) used
>>> for decades.
>>
>> don't think so
>>
>> the IoT hype is all about marketing benefits - selling consumers
>> extra features (that they never knew they ever wanted and probably
>> don't need)
>>
>
> The IoT hype that relates to people trying to get funding for things
> like Internet enabled juicers might be more frothy

I have just received a questionnaire from the manufactures of my PVR asking 
about what upgraded features I would like it to include.

Whilst they didn't ask it openly, reading between the lines there were 
asking:

"would you like to control your home heating (and several other things) via 
your Smart TV (box)"

To which I answered, of course I bloody well don't

Even if I did seen a benefit in having an internet connected heating 
controller, why would I want to control it from my sofa using anything other 
than the remote control that comes with it, in the box?

tim
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27123

tim... wrote on 8/6/2017 1:06 PM:
>
> I have just received a questionnaire from the manufactures of my PVR asking
> about what upgraded features I would like it to include.
>
> Whilst they didn't ask it openly, reading between the lines there were asking:
>
> "would you like to control your home heating (and several other things) via
> your Smart TV (box)"
>
> To which I answered, of course I bloody well don't
>
> Even if I did seen a benefit in having an internet connected heating
> controller, why would I want to control it from my sofa using anything other
> than the remote control that comes with it, in the box?

None of this makes sense to me because I have no idea what a PVR is.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27127

"rickman" <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:om8fmj$vc3$3@dont-email.me...
> tim... wrote on 8/6/2017 1:06 PM:
>>
>> I have just received a questionnaire from the manufactures of my PVR 
>> asking
>> about what upgraded features I would like it to include.
>>
>> Whilst they didn't ask it openly, reading between the lines there were 
>> asking:
>>
>> "would you like to control your home heating (and several other things) 
>> via
>> your Smart TV (box)"
>>
>> To which I answered, of course I bloody well don't
>>
>> Even if I did seen a benefit in having an internet connected heating
>> controller, why would I want to control it from my sofa using anything 
>> other
>> than the remote control that comes with it, in the box?
>
> None of this makes sense to me because I have no idea what a PVR is.

A Personal Video Recorded (a disk based video recorder)


>
> -- 
>
> Rick C 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27113

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 15:20:40 -0500, Les Cargill
> <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>> Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
>>> Am 27.07.2017 um 14:35 schrieb hogwarts:
>> <snip>
>>> And so the pork cycle rolls on.
>>>
>>
>> That's a great way to put it.
>>
>>> And they don't even start to think about how anybody is supposed to
>>> make an informed decision between such ultra-specialized programmes.
>>> I'm convinced it's impossible.
>>
>> IMO, a reputable EE programme is still probably the best way. CS
>> programs still vary too much; CS may or may not be a second-class
>> setup in many universities.
>>
>> I get the feeling that *analog* engineers still have a stable job
>> base because it's much harder to fake that. It's somewhat harder.
>>
>> And I'd warn the OP against specifically targeting IoT. It's a big
>> bubble. People win in bubbles but it's not likely you will be among
>> them.
>
> I have often wondered what this IoT hype is all about. It seems to be
> very similar to the PLC (Programmable Logic Controller) used for
> decades.

Similar. But PLCs are more pointed more at ladder logic for use in
industrial settings. You generally cannot, for example, write a socket
server that just does stuff on a PLC; you have to stay inside a dev
framework that cushions it for you.

There is a great deal of vendor lockin and the tool suites are rather 
creaky. And it's all very costly.

> You need to do some programming but as equally important
> interface to he external world (sensors, relay controls and
> communication to other devices).
>

Yep.

> These days, the programmable devices are just smaller, _much_ cheaper
> and have much better performance than a PLC one or two decades ago.
>

Very much so. While doing paper-engineering - as in PE work - for power
distro has some learning curve, the basics of power distro aren't rocket 
surgery.

> Take a look at universities having industrial automation courses and
> check what topics are included relevant to PLCs. Select these subjects
> at your local university. You might not need process control theory
> for simple IoT :-)
>

You might end up building a flaky hunk of garbage if you don't...

> Analog electronics is important e.g. for interfacing exotic sensors or
> controlling equally odd devices as well as protecting I/O against
> overvoltage and ground potential issues. Understanding about line
> voltage issues and line wiring can be a question of life and death.
>

Absolutely.

>> Just be aware that people are uniformly terrible at hiring in tech,
>> so networking is key.
>
> These days much jobs are outsourced to cheaper countries, so you might
> concentrate on skills that are harder to outsource.
>

-- 
Les Cargill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.arch.embedded

csiph-web