Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #25785
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? |
| Date | 2017-02-06 15:29 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <o7at9i$3pq$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <sT2mA.698994$vP3.351399@fx45.am4> <o7agp6$ijm$1@dont-email.me> <s55mA.728172$SV2.500573@fx39.am4> <o7ap5v$kuv$1@dont-email.me> <Xw6mA.154283$6N1.4638@fx09.am4> |
On 2/6/2017 3:12 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> It's just like designing synchronous hardware.
>
> Oh, indeed.
>
> I like playing a game with people that think
> there is a difference between hardware and
> software: get them to try to provide a test to
> distinguish one from the other. They always fail.
>
> It is best played in a pub, with a few pints,
> after work.
My preference is for designing hardware. And, synchronous
circuits are hands-down easier to design/debug. So,
FSM's are almost /de rigueur/.
To me, it's only natural to use the same design techniques
when it comes to software. It also makes debugging easier
("things only change on -- FSM -- clock edges" :> ).
Some folks opt for *huge* tables that enumerate all inputs
for all current_states and declared next_states. Rarely is
this necessary (it's often a gross inefficiency -- in space).
The big advantage to software FSM implementations is that
you can implement all sorts of mechanisms that would be
costly or impractical to implement in hardware, at the
same level of abstraction. (e.g., specifying a "next_state"
of PREVIOUS_STATE!)
For newbies, the concept is usually a little unsettling.
They're looking for "the code" and, instead, their seeing
an abstract description of a machine with smatterings
of code around the edges.
("How can you CALL a FSM???" "Why not?!" :> )
But, I've yet to find someone who didn't ultimately embrace
the technology; its just too damn intuitive not to!
Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Do you use FSMs or HSMs? pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 10:43 +0100
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 03:20 -0700
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2017-02-06 06:38 -0800
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? "QL" <80499@EmbeddedRelated> - 2017-02-06 08:56 -0600
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 12:13 -0700
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2017-02-06 16:52 -0800
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 18:11 -0700
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-02-06 23:32 -0600
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 10:39 +0100
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? John Speth <johnspeth@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-06 09:17 -0800
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 18:03 +0000
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 11:56 -0700
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 20:34 +0000
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 14:19 -0700
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 22:12 +0000
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 15:29 -0700
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-08 12:15 -0500
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 23:52 +0000
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-08 19:59 -0500
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Steve Watt <steve.removethis@Watt.COM> - 2017-02-17 00:30 +0000
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-17 00:44 +0000
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-07 10:12 +1100
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-02-06 23:36 -0600
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-02-07 03:15 -0500
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-02-10 17:41 -0600
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-07 19:56 +1100
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 01:30 -0800
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-07 20:42 +1100
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 02:46 -0800
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-08 00:27 +1100
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-06 18:35 -0800
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 21:50 -0700
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-02-06 23:39 -0600
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-06 23:20 -0800
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-02-10 17:47 -0600
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-10 16:11 -0800
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-02-11 15:43 -0600
Re: Do you use FSMs or HSMs? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-02-06 23:24 -0600
csiph-web