| General > General Technical Chat |
| Starting a new CompSci/Electronics career -need advice! |
| << < (9/14) > >> |
| coppice:
--- Quote from: tggzzz on September 08, 2022, 01:21:27 pm --- --- Quote from: coppice on September 08, 2022, 12:46:47 pm --- --- Quote from: tggzzz on September 08, 2022, 12:33:15 pm ---The thought of an hour commuting on the tube was enough to discourage me from applying for a job at the Hirst Research Centre in Wembley! --- End quote --- That discouraged you, and not the thought of working at Hirst? Weird. ;) --- End quote --- Nice snark :) The milk round made me realise why I didn't want to work for GEC. Hirst wasn't the "normal" GEC, but was still very gloomy internally! Not a difficult decision to make. --- End quote --- There were several pure research operations around GEC, but none of them were that much different from working in the other GEC operations. They all relied on blood sucking the government, only interested in solid commercially oriented work when there was no alternative. |
| rstofer:
At our local private university, per SEMESTER fees are: $26,000 Tuition $ 1,400 Medical Insurance (may be optional if student covered by parents) $ 7,000 Housing ========= $34,400 (give or take, probably have to add a few thousand for other expenses and student fees) Times 10 semesters for a EE => $344,000 !!! There are stipends that may reduce the number but it is still a staggering number. Grad school at a more distant location is priced about the same. Some Master's can be completed in just 3 semesters so call it $100,000. It is far better to take the first 4 semesters at a community college and of course it is better to live at home, if it's possible. My education was essentially free. The Veteran's Administration paid for my undergrad and my employer paid for grad school. This was a LONG time ago! |
| fourfathom:
--- Quote from: tggzzz on September 08, 2022, 09:48:03 am --- --- Quote from: fourfathom on September 08, 2022, 05:00:27 am ---... something impenetrable due to fouled up use of quotes .... --- End quote --- It appears that you have one very clear idea of what software is and isn't, but aren't prepared to indicate what that might be other than by a few poorly chosen spot examples. When presented with an "awkward example" you also introduce another term, firmware. You then use it in a way that not only contradicts your other statements, but also doesn't fit with the commonly understood meaning of the term, viz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware That indicates you don't understand what microcode is, despite having been given one reference. Here's another even clearer reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_code#Relationship_to_microcode Hearing aids have evolved very considerably in the 35 years since you were involved in research into cochlear implants. Their capabilities are astounding. You stated "Some might call Verilog or VHDL software, but the resulting design implementation is hardware." So, do you regard VHDL/Verilog code as hardware or software? How is that fundamentally different to C running in hardware? Do you realise that modern x86 processors all run Minix internally? Or that they way they implement x86 machine instructions is changed after installation, especially when bugs are found? So, is an x86 chip hardware or software? --- End quote --- I had *one* missing quote tag, and just fixed it. Perhaps you will be capable of penetrating it now? Why do you keep bringing up processors? Do you think that processor design is the only remaining field in EE? Of course they run software, and contain embedded code of some sort. Many of the chip designers probably wrote the embedded stuff. You would win this argument if I were claiming otherwise -- but I never have. A modern engineer should probably know something about software, and many engineering tasks and designs will require it. Go ahead and quibble about the definitions of microcode, firmware, and software, or the evolution of hearing aid technology. These are irrelevant to the actual argument, and you dragging red herrings across the discussion only tells me that you (at best) don't understand the argument. Let's back way up. You have repeatedly claimed that there is no obvious difference between hardware and software: --- Quote from: tggzzz on September 08, 2022, 09:48:03 am ---I like to have fun with people that think there is an obvious difference between hardware and software. --- End quote --- When I provide some obvious cases, as well as some gray-area ones, you insult, hand-wave, and present irrelevant examples. So here's another example: You need a Colpitts oscillator. So you design one. One transistor (or two, if you buffer it), an inductor, three or four capacitors, and a few resistors. This is a hardware circult, probably a part of a larger design, but perhaps not. There is no software content. No programming required. No digital logic. You don't even need to use a computer in the design process. My position is that some electronic designs do not involve software. Nothing more. *Using* software during the design process does not make the design any less of a hardware-only design. Designing a board where there is a component which runs software that someone else has written does not make that board design task a software design. If you actually write the code, or need to understand the code in order to do the design then you are engaging in software as well as hardware design. Verilog is a *Hardware* Description Language. The Verilog simulator/compiler/etc. is software. The final design is hardware, which may or may not contain microcode or run software. If the final design consists of just an internal oscillator, a counter and eventually blinks an external LED then this is a hardware design. The fact that software was involved in the design process is irrelevant. Back to the OP's situation: In Electronics Engineering you are sometimes an independent designer, but usually you are part of a team. Knowing software is usually a very good thing, and probably required for many jobs. Starting with a software background and then moving into hardware requires a new set of skills and knowledge, and the details depends a lot on the type of hardware design you wish to do. I'm speaking of the work and the skills required, not how you get there. |
| tggzzz:
--- Quote from: fourfathom on September 08, 2022, 03:44:00 pm ---Why do you keep bringing up processors? Do you think that processor design is the only remaining field in EE? Of course they run software, and contain embedded code of some sort. Many of the chip designers probably wrote the embedded stuff. You would win this argument if I were claiming otherwise -- but I never have. A modern engineer should probably know something about software, and many engineering tasks and designs will require it. --- End quote --- You continue to miss the point. I use the implemention of modern processors to demonstrate that there is no clear distinction between hardware and software. --- Quote ---Go ahead and quibble about the definitions of microcode, firmware, and software, or the evolution of hearing aid technology. These are irrelevant to the actual argument, and you dragging red herrings across the discussion only tells me that you (at best) don't understand the argument. --- End quote --- No, the definitions and distinctions are central to the argument. They clearly demonstrate that there is a graded continuum between something that is obviously "pure" hardware such as a colpitts oscillator and something that is obviously pure software such as a telecoms billing system. That graded continuum means there is no clear distinction between hardware and software. ... strawman arguments omitted ... --- Quote ---Verilog is a *Hardware* Description Language. --- End quote --- Your understanding of VHDL (and Verilog and others) is limited. Hardware description is part of VHDL and one thing it is used for. There are other things it is used for, as exemplified by non-synthesisable programs and operating system file manipulation. VHDL behavioural models are akin to C programs; both are compiled to primitives. Structural models are akin to macro assemblers; they expand the models to primitives. --- Quote ---The Verilog simulator/compiler/etc. is software. The final design is hardware, which may or may not contain microcode or run software. If the final design consists of just an internal oscillator, a counter and eventually blinks an external LED then this is a hardware design. --- End quote --- Look deeper. The final designs are all analogue voltages, electron flow and electromagnetic fields, to which we assign some meaning. With the exception of photon counting amd femto-amp circuits, all circuits are analogue (I exaggerate a little, to make the point). So-called "digital ICs" are actually analogue circuits in which voltages within certain ranges are interpreted as digital signals. Failure to understand that and deal with it leads to specialists in "signal integrity" being able to make a good living. So, is an x86 processor hardware or software? Is an IC hardware or software? Does the answer change if the IC is an MCU? Why? Is an FPGA hardware or software? In what way is that fundamentally different to an embedded MCU? --- Quote ---The fact that software was involved in the design process is irrelevant. --- End quote --- I have never claimed that software being involved in the design process was relevant. You were the one that introduced that kind of concept. |
| PlainName:
--- Quote ---So, is an x86 processor hardware or software? Is an IC hardware or software? Does the answer change if the IC is an MCU? Why? Is an FPGA hardware or software? In what way is that fundamentally different to an embedded MCU? --- End quote --- Wouldn't the answer depend on what you're going to do with them? If you're making one run Windows then clearly it is software. But if you're trying to create a motherboard on which to stick them then clearly that's hardware. You can be a wiz at DDR5 layout and barely able to write a one-line hello.bat, and similarly be able to implement some adjacent row snooping algorithm and yet be unable to identify the right DIMM slot to plug one into. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |