FORUM: New Brand specific categories

[EEVblog]

I have created new child categories for specific brand micros and FPGA's.
I will slowly try and move some posts over, but can't possibly get them all. If there is an important big thread you want moved, please report it.
We have different categories for PCB packages, so I figure it's time for micros as well. This should help create more focused user groups.
Thanks.

[ehughes]

Please add NXP.

[ataradov]

Well, apparently I'm subscribed to a lot of STM32 topics, and now I get notifications for all of them

[EEVblog]

Well, apparently I'm subscribed to a lot of STM32 topics, and now I get notifications for all of them

I thought I'd lump STM32 under ARM, but when moving posts I noticed a huge amount of STM32 posts, so gave it it's own category

[EEVblog]

Please add NXP.

There are only 25 threads related to NXP, does that warrant it's own category?

[wilfred]

Surely this thread is not on topic for a microcontrollers board. EEVblog Specific --> News, would be more appropriate.

However, What about an Espressif board for their devices.  Oh No!. That belongs in EEVblog Specific --> Suggestions.

[wilfred]

Please add NXP.

There are only 25 threads related to NXP, does that warrant it's own category?

If they are small then couldn't it be argued that they'll get lost in a larger general board.

By the same token a special Arduino board could be useful to avoid swamping bare-metal AVR freaks in AVR.

[Circlotron]

Please add NXP.

+1
And name it Motorola - OnSemi - Freescale - NXP and whatever other name they might have had. Many semiconductor manufacturers have changed their names in the last 20 years for some reason.

[EEVblog]

By the same token a special Arduino board could be useful to avoid swamping bare-metal AVR freaks in AVR.

Arduino goes in the new embedded computing section

[Freddie Chopin]

My 2c - I think it is a bad idea to separate ARM, STM32 and NXP. They are all ARM - creating categories that are so detailed will just create more confusion.

[JPortici]

have we opened pandora's vase? 
what started as a poll about adding sub sections on the most active part of the forum is becoming a whole do-over

My 2c - I think it is a bad idea to separate ARM, STM32 and NXP. They are all ARM - creating categories that are so detailed will just create more confusion.

i think it's a bad idea to have an ARM section at all, Atmel ARM has nothing to do with STM32 ARM or NXP ARM. Peripherals are different, bus is different, they are the same as long as you only do assembly without ever specifying an address or accessing peripherals

[EEVblog]

My 2c - I think it is a bad idea to separate ARM, STM32 and NXP. They are all ARM - creating categories that are so detailed will just create more confusion.

But the toolchains can be different, and the parts have a LOT of differences. When there are 1000+ posts specifically targeting STM32 in the subject heading I think it deserves it's own category.

[EEVblog]

have we opened pandora's vase? 
what started as a poll about adding sub sections on the most active part of the forum is becoming a whole do-over

It's been talked about for a long time.
And when I thought about it again, we have seperate categories for CAD packages, why not micros? Makes sense to me when people have to tag their subject heading PIC/AVR/STM32 etc

[EEVblog]

i think it's a bad idea to have an ARM section at all, Atmel ARM has nothing to do with STM32 ARM or NXP ARM. Peripherals are different, bus is different, they are the same as long as you only do assembly without ever specifying an address or accessing peripherals

It's about creating groups where people can come (often from other specific forums) and focus on one family of devices. They can just get email alerts for that category. It's about having the ability to grow the forum user base, and I think that's more easily done when people have suitable categories they want to participate in.

[Freddie Chopin]

i think it's a bad idea to have an ARM section at all, Atmel ARM has nothing to do with STM32 ARM or NXP ARM. Peripherals are different, bus is different, they are the same as long as you only do assembly without ever specifying an address or accessing peripherals

In this case you'll also need a separate section for AtTiny and AtMega, not to mention separate sections for PIC10, PIC16, PIC18, PIC24, dsPIC33 and PIC32, which have not only different peripherals, but also different assembly.

But the toolchains can be different, and the parts have a LOT of differences. When there are 1000+ posts specifically targeting STM32 I think it deserves it's own category.

The toolchains are identical. They _can_ be different just as you can use different compiler for a PIC16 - either the one from Microchip or some commercial thing from elsewhere (was it called MicroElektronika?). In fact  99,666% toolchains for ARM are based on GCC and the only thing that is different are the IDEs. Commercial toolchains like Keil or IAR support most existing ARM microcontrollers, so again not so different.

If you consider part differences enough for a separate section, imagine how different is a 32 MHz STM32F0 with an ARMv6-M Cortex-M0 from a 400 MHz STM32H7 with an ARMv7-M Cortex-M7 + double precision FPU? Not only the peripherals have multiple differences, but also the assembly is not 100% compatible! Should I even start with a STM32MP, which is not even a microcontroller, but an application processor? Or new STM32 with ARMv8-M Cortex-M33 cores?

I know I'm pulling this to an extreme, but too detailed categories is an extreme too. And also STM32 is not something that should be next to ARM, as if it was something different - if they deserve a subcategory, it should be _IN_ ARM, not beside it. But then you would have too many levels of categories, which would make everything harder to find and explore.

Moreover - NXP is a very bad name. If anything, it should be LPC, unless some day you want to add categories like Atmel or Microchip and explain to everyone that these would not cover AVRs and PICs (; But LPC is also not ideal, as after NXP bought Freescale they have more ARMs than only LPCs. Oh - if there would be a category for all LPCs / NXP ARMs, please keep in mind that the name LPC... applies to chips with ARM7TDMI-S, ARM9 and ARM Cortex-M cores (and possibly to something else too), which probably covers products released during almost 2 decades.

As you see, I'm really against any more categories than one for ARM microcontrollers. Generally the idea of "categories" (meaning that you can select only one) has multiple flaws and just cannot be applied universally, so we have to live with some shortcomings. The ideal would be a tag system, where you could select more than one for your topic. Otherwise if I have a specific project in which I interface an STM32 to an AVR and I don't know in which part the problem is, which category should I put it in? Or if I try to interface a microcontroller to an FPGA. Or if I ask for a suggestion whether I should choose STM32 or LPC17xx?

[ebastler]

The separate TI section looks like a non-obvious choice. Yes, you gathered 65 threads on that processor family, but most of them are several years old. Only four active threads during the last 12 months!

Won't any new posts in that section be at risk of getting overlooked, because nobody bothers to visit that quiet corner of the forum? I would prefer to merge the TI-related posts back into the general µP & FPGA section.

[PA0PBZ]

Moving the threads makes them re-appear in Updated Topics, so now I suddenly have a handful of threads from 2013 showing up in "Show new replies to your posts".
I have not seen that before when a thread was moved. 

[EEVblog]

Moving the threads makes them re-appear in Updated Topics, so now I suddenly have a handful of threads from 2013 showing up in "Show new replies to your posts".
I have not seen that before when a thread was moved. 

I don't see that 

[EEVblog]

i think it's a bad idea to have an ARM section at all, Atmel ARM has nothing to do with STM32 ARM or NXP ARM. Peripherals are different, bus is different, they are the same as long as you only do assembly without ever specifying an address or accessing peripherals

In this case you'll also need a separate section for AtTiny and AtMega, not to mention separate sections for PIC10, PIC16, PIC18, PIC24, dsPIC33 and PIC32, which have not only different peripherals, but also different assembly.

But the toolchains can be different, and the parts have a LOT of differences. When there are 1000+ posts specifically targeting STM32 I think it deserves it's own category.

The toolchains are identical. They _can_ be different just as you can use different compiler for a PIC16 - either the one from Microchip or some commercial thing from elsewhere (was it called MicroElektronika?). In fact  99,666% toolchains for ARM are based on GCC and the only thing that is different are the IDEs. Commercial toolchains like Keil or IAR support most existing ARM microcontrollers, so again not so different.

If you consider part differences enough for a separate section, imagine how different is a 32 MHz STM32F0 with an ARMv6-M Cortex-M0 from a 400 MHz STM32H7 with an ARMv7-M Cortex-M7 + double precision FPU? Not only the peripherals have multiple differences, but also the assembly is not 100% compatible! Should I even start with a STM32MP, which is not even a microcontroller, but an application processor? Or new STM32 with ARMv8-M Cortex-M33 cores?

I know I'm pulling this to an extreme, but too detailed categories is an extreme too. And also STM32 is not something that should be next to ARM, as if it was something different - if they deserve a subcategory, it should be _IN_ ARM, not beside it. But then you would have too many levels of categories, which would make everything harder to find and explore.

Moreover - NXP is a very bad name. If anything, it should be LPC, unless some day you want to add categories like Atmel or Microchip and explain to everyone that these would not cover AVRs and PICs (; But LPC is also not ideal, as after NXP bought Freescale they have more ARMs than only LPCs. Oh - if there would be a category for all LPCs / NXP ARMs, please keep in mind that the name LPC... applies to chips with ARM7TDMI-S, ARM9 and ARM Cortex-M cores (and possibly to something else too), which probably covers products released during almost 2 decades.

As you see, I'm really against any more categories than one for ARM microcontrollers. Generally the idea of "categories" (meaning that you can select only one) has multiple flaws and just cannot be applied universally, so we have to live with some shortcomings. The ideal would be a tag system, where you could select more than one for your topic. Otherwise if I have a specific project in which I interface an STM32 to an AVR and I don't know in which part the problem is, which category should I put it in? Or if I try to interface a microcontroller to an FPGA. Or if I ask for a suggestion whether I should choose STM32 or LPC17xx?

Sorry but we could go on about this forever, I just made a decision, it's done.

[PA0PBZ]

Moving the threads makes them re-appear in Updated Topics, so now I suddenly have a handful of threads from 2013 showing up in "Show new replies to your posts".
I have not seen that before when a thread was moved. 

I don't see that 

It's only threads you posted in  of course, see attached:

[hans]

I think that forum categories are always a bit ambiguous. TI also makes MSP432, which is an ARM chip. STM32 has such strong presence in the hobby field due to Nucleo boards, tutorials, etc. Even though their chips are very comparable price, package, and feature wise to competitors.

I'm a bit surprised not to see a RISC-V category, as it may become more relevant in the upcoming years if it starts to pick up. I think it's already quite popular in the SoC and FPGA design space.

In addition I think that Lattice FPGAs are more interesting to hobbyists because of the open source toolchains and much lower cost chips, above the likes of Xilinx which seems to focus more on high pin-count and high logic density chips.

[wilfred]

i think it's a bad idea to have an ARM section at all, Atmel ARM has nothing to do with STM32 ARM or NXP ARM. Peripherals are different, bus is different, they are the same as long as you only do assembly without ever specifying an address or accessing peripherals

It's about creating groups where people can come (often from other specific forums) and focus on one family of devices. They can just get email alerts for that category. It's about having the ability to grow the forum user base, and I think that's more easily done when people have suitable categories they want to participate in.

Do you have tools to monitor if the changes are achieving that purpose?

And I still think you should have a board for the Espressif devices. They aren't a tight fit in another board and they're popular enough. You want those people too.

[neil555]

Can we also have an "Other" section for things like STM8 or questions that are not specific to a particular manufacturer?

[ebastler]

Can we also have an "Other" section for things like STM8 or questions that are not specific to a particular manufacturer?

Well, the main "microcontroller and FPGA" section is still alive and well. I understand that any topic which does not fit one of the specific sub-categories is meant to go there.

[newbrain]

Dave's place, Dave's rules.

That said, this is going to disrupt my use of this section, and I know I'm going to miss interesting stuff.
Why and how, I think it's immaterial, as the decision is taken.

I'm now waiting for the split of "Dodgy Technology" in

• Cables
• Power/Energy
• Detection (metal/explosives)
• Medical
• Audiophoolery

[ebastler]

And I still think you should have a board for the Espressif devices. They aren't a tight fit in another board and they're popular enough. You want those people too.

Those are meant to go into the Computing/Embedded Computing section, I think. ESP8266 is specifically mentioned in that board's short description.

EDIT: Which is a stupid place to put it, btw. It's either a microcontroller or maybe an "IoT" device, but can't do much computing at all...

[tggzzz]

I have created new child categories for specific brand micros and FPGA's.
I will slowly try and move some posts over, but can't possibly get them all. If there is an important big thread you want moved, please report it.
We have different categories for PCB packages, so I figure it's time for micros as well. This should help create more focused user groups.
Thanks.

If someone wants to discuss the ARM processors inside Xilinx Zynq FPGAs, should they put the thread in the ARM or Xilinx subforum?

If someone wants to find out about the ARM processors inside Xilinx Zynq FPGAs, should they look in the ARM or Xilinx subforum? Or both

[westfw]

Well, I liked having all the microcontrollers together, and didn't think the traffic was that high; certainly not enough to justify 5 vendor-specific + general + another half dozen or so "computing" categories.  Perhaps I'm unusual, since I'm particularly interested in comparative micros, and the finer division is more "professional"?  But if I wanted to read something specific to a particular chip, there are the vendor forums with their dry and boring non-conversations and topics that generate a message once in a blue moon :-(   I was hoping for more general "discussions" on EEVBlog.  :-(

(While I don't generally use FPGAs, it's never bothered me that they were lumped in with microcontrollers.  Even together, there isn't that much traffic.)
(alas, since the "Microcontrollers and FPGAs topic is the only one I read frequently (and only add "Beginners" and "Projects" "regularly but not frequently"), I completely missed the survey and discussion of these new divisions.  I only see that I used to read three topics, and now I'll need to read more than a dozen to see the same content  :-(  Sigh.)

[Freddie Chopin]

Well, I liked having all the microcontrollers together, and didn't think the traffic was that high; certainly not enough to justify 5 vendor-specific + general + another half dozen or so "computing" categories.  Perhaps I'm unusual, since I'm particularly interested in comparative micros, and the finer division is more "professional"?  But if I wanted to read something specific to a particular chip, there are the vendor forums with their dry and boring non-conversations and topics that generate a message once in a blue moon :-(   I was hoping for more general "discussions" on EEVBlog.  :-(

(While I don't generally use FPGAs, it's never bothered me that they were lumped in with microcontrollers.  Even together, there isn't that much traffic.)
(alas, since the "Microcontrollers and FPGAs topic is the only one I read frequently (and only add "Beginners" and "Projects" "regularly but not frequently"), I completely missed the survey and discussion of these new divisions.  I only see that I used to read three topics, and now I'll need to read more than a dozen to see the same content  :-(  Sigh.)

+1 - exactly as me.

[gmb42]

Dave's place, Dave's rules.

That said, this is going to disrupt my use of this section, and I know I'm going to miss interesting stuff.
Why and how, I think it's immaterial, as the decision is taken.

I'm now waiting for the split of "Dodgy Technology" in

• Cables
• Power/Energy
• Detection (metal/explosives)
• Medical
• Audiophoolery

Well, I liked having all the microcontrollers together, and didn't think the traffic was that high; certainly not enough to justify 5 vendor-specific + general + another half dozen or so "computing" categories.  Perhaps I'm unusual, since I'm particularly interested in comparative micros, and the finer division is more "professional"?  But if I wanted to read something specific to a particular chip, there are the vendor forums with their dry and boring non-conversations and topics that generate a message once in a blue moon :-(   I was hoping for more general "discussions" on EEVBlog.  :-(

(While I don't generally use FPGAs, it's never bothered me that they were lumped in with microcontrollers.  Even together, there isn't that much traffic.)
(alas, since the "Microcontrollers and FPGAs topic is the only one I read frequently (and only add "Beginners" and "Projects" "regularly but not frequently"), I completely missed the survey and discussion of these new divisions.  I only see that I used to read three topics, and now I'll need to read more than a dozen to see the same content  :-(  Sigh.)

My whine for all its worthless content:

I feel exactly the same, I have little enough time to spare for the low signal value threads, now I have to check many sub-forums to find anything interesting.

I never saw any recent discussions, when this was last discussed https://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/should-we-categorise-the-mcu-section/ the community feeling was to leave it as it is by a small margin.

Yes, it's Dave's place, but it's the community that makes it an interesting place to visit, and disrupting the community because of "reasons" isn't helpful.

I guess it'll keep the mods happy, busy moving posts to the relevant sections.  Personally I hope folks keep just posting in the main section.

[Siwastaja]

Yes, IMHO, the new system totally sucks. The amount of traffic wasn't high, it was even on the low side, and in most cases the subjects are now relevant for multiple new subforums. Is "ARM" meant for discussing the ARM core exclusively, or is it a catch-all for all other ARM microcontrollers except STM32, which has its own section?

In reality, ARM microcontrollers have a lot more in common than not - libraries, compilers, workflows, everything except on-chip peripherals.

Arduino is embedded computing? What  ? This is horribly miscategorized. I'm not sad to see Arduino topics disappearing from my view, was never interested, but anyway, it's just plainly and utterly wrong. It's as far from "embedded computing" as it can get. Arduino if anything is a textbook example of a classical embedded microcontroller system, simply a devboard for a microcontroller, and the architecture is specifically designed to perform IO control of physical devices like LEDs, motors, etc., and totally suck on computing, which no one uses it for, for obvious reasons. I don't know if we need a division between MCUs and computing, but if we do, Arduino's on the wrong side.

I don't know how others read this forum, but I open up the interesting sections in tabs, look for new interesting topics, and participate. I used to open 3-5 sections, now I would need to open more than 10, most of which now have 0 new posts most of the time (or 1 new post, which is unlikely to be interesting).

In the old system, even after a week or two of absence, the new topics fit within half a page, easy to cherry-pick.

But I understand it's not my forum, the owners are welcome to do whatever they want, but IMHO this was clearly a very whimsical way to break the existing, working, well balanced structure, which still had enough future-proofing for increasing number of posts, at least for 2x or 3x.

If it's just a test, well, it's clearly not working for me at all and I can see myself stopping contributing to the microcontroller/FPGA section due to this extra complication. In any case, please, whatever you do, please don't spread this cancer to the "Projects, Designs, and Technical Stuff" forum, it's working like a charm as it is.

If you really need to divide, do the division lines where they naturally exist. MCU and FPGA have very little to do with each other, so consider separating them (now you missed this obvious thing, and you don't have any forum anymore for Lattice FPGA's, for example!), and if you really need to separate the Arduino stuff, make it some kind of an "MCUs for beginners" or "adafruit module engineering" section. We are not seeing a lot of these topics here, which signifies two things; 1) this is clearly a forum for professional, experienced EE's, 2) such forums exist elsewhere and serve their audiences well.

Please also note that the actual front page that lists the forums fails to list the descriptions for the child forums, and as they are insufficiently named, you are bound to see people failing to understand the categorization. What's "Intel"? Intel processors? Intel microcontrollers? Nope! It's Intel FPGA's, but you can't know it from where you'd normally open the categories.

[ebastler]

I'm now waiting for the split of "Dodgy Technology" in

• Cables
• Power/Energy
• Detection (metal/explosives)
• Medical
• Audiophoolery

Yes, that's the likely next step. 

Seems like Dave is on a mission to increase the number of categories in the forum. A "Computing" section with multiple sub-sections was created; "Microcontrollers & FPGAs" was split without warning or discussion; splitting the "Test Equipment" category was just discussed (with a roughly 50:50 split in preference) and may or may not happen.

I dont think "bigger is better" is valid here. Am I supposed to browse all those new categories?

[nctnico]

My 2c - I think it is a bad idea to separate ARM, STM32 and NXP. They are all ARM - creating categories that are so detailed will just create more confusion.

I agree. The latest addition of so many sub categories is dilluting the forum severely. I'm not going to read through every sub category. Before the latest addition of child boards I read about 20% of the main categories (which was already less than before). After the new sub-categories that will probably go down to 5% or less and I may even loose interest because information gets scattered and interesting posts in the categories I visit are few.

[mikeselectricstuff]

I think an "Other FPGAs and general HDL" section would be useful, so FPGA posts don't get lost in the general MCU stuff

[JTR]

Didn't know the forum was broken. Why this needed to be "fixed" is not something I can see.  It certainly doesn't play well with my M.O. of quickly logging on to see at a glance any interesting topic or reply by a forum user or "peer" of whom I am always interested to see what knowledge they have to share. The ease of use and the general nature of this forum was it's strength and set it apart for the plethora of other forums out there.

As for this been done and get over it attitude, well you could just as easily rename the whole forum to "Ode to the Pickit 3" and say the bloody same thing.

 

[NorthGuy]

I think the old "Microcontrollers and FPGA" section didn't have enough activity, just few posts a day, and wasn't any difficult to follow. I always felt that it would be more interesting if it had more posts (to the levels of "General Chat"). After it is split into 12 different sections, each of these 12 sections will have little activity. Following them will be much harder for me.

Also, there were very little threads which were hard set on a particular MCU. And even threads that started this way often migrated into more broad topics. For example, the discussions often evolved into comparisons how the same problem may be addressed with FPGA vs MCU. This contrasted eevblog to vendor support forums where the most important thing in what is the exact part number of the device.

I think it's a good idea to have general programmng/computing forum (in addition to Microcontrollers and FPGA), which wasn't covered by any topic, but yet often discussed. However, I don't think there were enough of such posts to justify 6 different forums.

[Bud]

My 2c - I think it is a bad idea to separate ARM, STM32 and NXP. They are all ARM - creating categories that are so detailed will just create more confusion.

I was also confused by that.

[GromBeestje]

My 2c - I think it is a bad idea to separate ARM, STM32 and NXP. They are all ARM - creating categories that are so detailed will just create more confusion.

I was also confused by that.

Exactly, if anything, STM32 and NXP should be subforums of ARM, but I'd say they all go to ARM.

[EEVblog]

I dont think "bigger is better" is valid here. Am I supposed to browse all those new categories?

If you want to see everything new on the forum, use the "Unread posts since last visit" button.
You can even exclude categories that don't interest you, and this is one of the big benefits of having more categories:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/profile/?area=ignoreboards

And I can't see how many people would want to see for example PIC posts daily if they are only interested in ARM devices? That wasn't possible before, now it is, just set the PIC board to ignore.

Benefits of the new sub categories:
1) Try and entice new people in who have an interest in particular topic, perhaps from other forums.
2) Encouraging a focus on particular groups and improvement engagement.
3) Eliminating the need for "tags" like "STM32" and "PIC" in the titles
4) Allows people to "ignore" entire topics that don't interest them.

No one ever complained about the CAD sub-categories, and I think the micro section makes just as much sense.

[EEVblog]

POLL:
"THANK" THIS POST if you agree that FPGA/PLD's should be split at the main category level, like:

Beginners
Projects
Repairs
Micros
FPGA/PLD

No need to reply, if I get enough thanks I'll do that.

[ebastler]

POLL:
"THANK" THIS POST if you agree that FPGA/PLD's should be split at the main category level, like:

Beginners
Projects
Repairs
Micros
FPGA/PLD

To clarify, that would be a different way of splitting "Microcontrollers & FPGAs", which would replace the subcategories introduced yesterday, right?

[Siwastaja]

And I can't see how many people would want to see for example PIC posts daily if they are only interested in ARM devices? That wasn't possible before, now it is, just set the PIC board to ignore.

But there are no PIC posts daily, maybe one or two per month. And many of them discuss generic microcontroller concepts anyway.

No one ever complained about the CAD sub-categories, and I think the micro section makes just as much sense.

I think there is a big difference. In the CAD world, it appears about 50% of the talk is about general principles, and about 50% is very tool specific. The sections reflect this reality. As I'm an Altium user, I'm reading the generic parent forum, and the Altium subforum, but never even peek at the DipTrace forum.

Think about Altium for example, only circumventing Altium-specific bugs and "features" can easily generate hundreds of pages of discussion, which is complete gibberish for anyone not using Altium.

Popular CAD sections have a lot of posts because these tools are so freaking complex, and in very different ways. KiCad "new version published" updates alone produce a lot of completely KiCad-specific discussion.

I don't see anything similar in the MCU world, especially since ARM became popular. A modern designer discusses 90% about non-brand-specific concepts, and when it comes to brands, they often have a few choices they want to compare. And then again, most things are really similar, think about how an MCU timer module, an UART, or a DMA works, on AVR, PIC, STM32 or LPC or PSoC. Compare this to how Altium and Kicad works and you see they are not comparable at all.

Then again, the sections as they are now are not divided sanely, anyway. You have TI. You expect people discuss Stellaris ARM MCUs and MSP430 on the same section? Yet Stellaris and STM32 are much closer to each other than Stellaris and MSP430.

The division lines are much harder to get right here, and you got them clearly wrong in a hurry. You can do somewhat better by putting some more thought into it, but it'll be almost impossible to do properly.

[EEVblog]

Seems like Dave is on a mission to increase the number of categories in the forum. A "Computing" section with multiple sub-sections was created; "Microcontrollers & FPGAs" was split without warning or discussion; splitting the "Test Equipment" category was just discussed (with a roughly 50:50 split in preference) and may or may not happen.

In my view the Test Equipment one is different. i.e. if you like test gear then you are generally interested in all test gear. But I don't see that being the same for CAD packages or for microcontroller types.
I think people are complaining here because the volume of posts in the previous Micros section wasn't that high, and people were often using "tags" in the titles, so it was "manageable".
Really, how many people with no interest in FPGA's were reading any FPGA threads? You'd just mentally bypass them when you scan the topic list.
 If the volume suddenly increased then I suspect those same people would be complaining that they don't like to see all those PIC posts or whatever.
I made this change with future expansion in mind.

[ebastler]

Really, how many people with no interest in FPGA's were reading any FPGA threads? You'd just mentally bypass them when you scan the topic list.

Yes, "microcontrollers" vs. "FPGAs" is a division which makes sense to me (and a few others, as stated in earlier comments). Even that would leave a trace of ambiguity for Zynq-type chips, but I don't think this would cause any real issues.

[Siwastaja]

No need to reply, if I get enough thanks I'll do that.

I know you may not want alternative suggestions, but here comes anyway; if you really feel you need to divide the original MCU/FPGA section, this would be my suggestion at it:

Microcontrollers - beginners
Discuss Arduino [add some similar brands], shields, and extension modules, and how to build projects out of them.

Microcontrollers
ARM, AVR, PIC, RISC V, any embedded controller goes. Development tools, embedded coding practices, peripherals. Design tips, problems, etc.

FPGAs and CPLDs
Programmable logic, Xilinx, Lattice, Intel (Altera)...

The "microcontroller" catch-all would remain the biggest (basically around 90% of the content we see now), but separating the Arduino shields and FPGAs would be a natural division line without creating too much confusion where to post, and would possibly allow these two new sections to lure in some new members, without upsetting the existing user base.

[EEVblog]

POLL:
"THANK" THIS POST if you agree that FPGA/PLD's should be split at the main category level, like:
Beginners
Projects
Repairs
Micros
FPGA/PLD

To clarify, that would be a different way of splitting "Microcontrollers & FPGAs", which would replace the subcategories introduced yesterday, right?

I'm didn't mean that, but I now see that lumping FPGA's under Microcontrollers is probably a bad idea and they should now to split at the top level.
But having said that, (someone mentioned this above) I can also see how the child categories are not displayed well by the SMF forum software. If anything, when having brand child categories, perhaps "Microcontrollers" should get it's own top level category separate from "Electronics".

[EEVblog]

And I can't see how many people would want to see for example PIC posts daily if they are only interested in ARM devices? That wasn't possible before, now it is, just set the PIC board to ignore.

But there are no PIC posts daily, maybe one or two per month. And many of them discuss generic microcontroller concepts anyway.

No one ever complained about the CAD sub-categories, and I think the micro section makes just as much sense.

I think there is a big difference. In the CAD world, it appears about 50% of the talk is about general principles, and about 50% is very tool specific. The sections reflect this reality. As I'm an Altium user, I'm reading the generic parent forum, and the Altium subforum, but never even peek at the DipTrace forum.

Think about Altium for example, only circumventing Altium-specific bugs and "features" can easily generate hundreds of pages of discussion, which is complete gibberish for anyone not using Altium.

Popular CAD sections have a lot of posts because these tools are so freaking complex, and in very different ways. KiCad "new version published" updates alone produce a lot of completely KiCad-specific discussion.

I don't see anything similar in the MCU world, especially since ARM became popular. A modern designer discusses 90% about non-brand-specific concepts, and when it comes to brands, they often have a few choices they want to compare. And then again, most things are really similar, think about how an MCU timer module, an UART, or a DMA works, on AVR, PIC, STM32 or LPC or PSoC. Compare this to how Altium and Kicad works and you see they are not comparable at all.

Then again, the sections as they are now are not divided sanely, anyway. You have TI. You expect people discuss Stellaris ARM MCUs and MSP430 on the same section? Yet Stellaris and STM32 are much closer to each other than Stellaris and MSP430.

The division lines are much harder to get right here, and you got them clearly wrong in a hurry. You can do somewhat better by putting some more thought into it, but it'll be almost impossible to do properly.

Yep, I'm starting to see that...
How about I revert back to just separate Microcontrollers and FPGA/PLD categories for now?
Perhaps with a sticky thread telling people how to use the section. i.e."Use "tages" like (PIC) in the title, like people do for the Buy/Sell/Auction section?
Also, I think I'll eliminate "child" boards entirely, and move CAD to it's own main section with just the brand sub boards.

[Freddie Chopin]

I made this change with future expansion in mind.

if it ain't broke, don't fix it

[ebastler]

How about I revert back to just separate Microcontrollers and FPGA/PLD categories for now?

 

[EEVblog]

Also, I think I'll eliminate "child" boards entirely, and move CAD to it's own main section with just the brand sub boards.

I've made that change, let me know what you think. I never liked the look of those Child boards with no description.

[Freddie Chopin]

How about I revert back to just separate Microcontrollers and FPGA/PLD categories for now?
Perhaps with a sticky thread telling people how to use the section. i.e."Use "tages" like (PIC) in the title, like people do for the Buy/Sell/Auction section?
Also, I think I'll eliminate "child" boards entirely, and move CAD to it's own main section with just the brand sub boards.

This would be great!

[ebastler]

Also, I think I'll eliminate "child" boards entirely, and move CAD to it's own main section with just the brand sub boards.

I've made that change, let me know what you think. I never liked the look of those Child boards with no description.

Hmm, not sure... The top-level list of boards is becoming awkwardly long for my taste. Adding the "Computing" section has already added a handful of entries, and now the "EDA" section adds another big handful.

I don't think "EDA" is big/active enough to warrant that level of visibilty. And I am happy enough with the way the forum software displays sub-boards, both in the "full" view and the mobile view.

[EEVblog]

Hmm, not sure... The top-level list of boards is becoming awkwardly long for my taste. Adding the "Computing" section has already added a handful of entries, and now the "EDA" section adds another big handful.
I don't think "EDA" is big/active enough to warrant that level of visibilty. And I am happy enough with the way the forum software displays sub-boards, both in the "full" view and the mobile view.

You can "collapse" the boards to take up less space, button on the right side.
Perhaps a couple of those can go? Who uses gEDA, Proteus, and DesignSpark? I only see a handful of threads this year in those.

[EEVblog]

Ok, FPGA's have been split from microcontrollers, I think this is a sensible and obvious choice.

[Freddie Chopin]

Ok, FPGA's have been split from microcontrollers, I think this is a sensible and obvious choice.

I assumed that "reverting" would mean that also the subcategories would be gone, but they are still here.

[StillTrying]

You can "collapse" the boards to take up less space, button on the right side.

For 90%+ of my quick visits, or even longer reads, or from different devices. I'm not logged in, so the "collapse" doesn't work.

I think MCU's and FPGA could be separated, but that's about it.

I agree with nearly all of the content of the ~15 previous posts, you're making it unusable, and it's not just because we 'don't like change'!

Edit: I don't mind the smaller fonts everywhere, I've got quite good eyesight at this distance.

[EEVblog]

Ok, it seems that nobody liked the new categories, it was universally hated.
Revert has been done, with the exception of splitting out the FPGA board from Microcontrollers.

[Freddie Chopin]

Great, thanks (;

[Sal Ammoniac]

Thanks for reverting it. Otherwise I think it would have resulted in the Balkanization of the groups, and based on experience with other forums, that's never good.

[KC0PPH]

I was really enjoying that.... Too bad it did not last 

[tggzzz]

I note that from the sub forums and descriptions, EDA==schematic+layout. In general that's a mistake, since there are many other forms of EDA, e.g. Spice being the most used analogue tool.

In theory I'd like to see a specific place for non schematic/layout EDA:

• a natural and significant distinction
• will actively encourage people to think about and use such tools, rather than stuffing components on a breadboard and hoping

but I have no idea whether there would be sufficient posts to justify it.

Revert has been done, with the exception of splitting out the FPGA board from Microcontrollers.

I think that's a good decision, not just because I suggested a few years ago I know it doesn't fit with my "ARM inside Zynq FPGA" question, but I really don't care

Thanks for reverting it. Otherwise I think it would have resulted in the Balkanization of the groups, and based on experience with other forums, that's never good.

Agreed.

[wilfred]

I'm now waiting for the split of "Dodgy Technology" in

It actually does serve a useful purpose as Dave has been saying. You can just ignore the entire board.

It was fun for a while but really, who cares anymore?

Separating that from General Chat really did make the forum a better place. But separating the people working with one microcontroller platform from those on another one doesn't help make the forum better. People who are not fanboys want to be exposed to other things and more importantly the people involved.  People come here to learn from others and to pass on whatever help they can offer. Or they just want to gather where others with similar interests (not devices) gather.

[wilfred]

Yes, it's Dave's place, but it's the community that makes it an interesting place to visit, and disrupting the community because of "reasons" isn't helpful.

I guess it'll keep the mods happy, busy moving posts to the relevant sections.  Personally I hope folks keep just posting in the main section.

+1

There's a cow path metaphor in there somewhere.

[newbrain]

Separating that from General Chat really did make the forum a better place. But separating the people working with one microcontroller platform from those on another one doesn't help make the forum better. People who are not fanboys want to be exposed to other things and more importantly the people involved.  People come here to learn from others and to pass on whatever help they can offer. Or they just want to gather where others with similar interests (not devices) gather.

I cannot but agree 100% - mine was a hyperbolic simile.
I'm glad that Dave reverted the change, opting for a much more reasonable solution and showing he listens to his public.

[EEVblog]

I note that from the sub forums and descriptions, EDA==schematic+layout. In general that's a mistake, since there are many other forms of EDA, e.g. Spice being the most used analogue tool.
In theory I'd like to see a specific place for non schematic/layout EDA:

• a natural and significant distinction
• will actively encourage people to think about and use such tools, rather than stuffing components on a breadboard and hoping

but I have no idea whether there would be sufficient posts to justify it.

I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be, but it would probably be more than gEDA. I'm thinking about ditching gEDA, DesignSpark, and Proteous. In that case a Simulation section could be added?

[EEVblog]

Given the zero outcry over splitting FPGA from micros, I take it that wasn't a problem...
BTW, I shuffled a few other categories around but I suspect no one really noticed.

[EEVblog]

I added a sticky post on how to add tags to posts.
Anything else to add?

[ebastler]

Given the zero outcry over splitting FPGA from micros, I take it that wasn't a problem...
BTW, I shuffled a few other categories around but I suspect no one really noticed.

The new sequence of main categories (Electronics, Products, General, Computing, EDA) and their sub-categories work fine for me. Completely removing all child boards has made the navigation nicely consistent. As mentioned earlier, the category listing on the home page is becoming a bit long for my taste, but I will get used to that.   

[tggzzz]

I note that from the sub forums and descriptions, EDA==schematic+layout. In general that's a mistake, since there are many other forms of EDA, e.g. Spice being the most used analogue tool.
In theory I'd like to see a specific place for non schematic/layout EDA:

• a natural and significant distinction
• will actively encourage people to think about and use such tools, rather than stuffing components on a breadboard and hoping

but I have no idea whether there would be sufficient posts to justify it.

I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be, but it would probably be more than gEDA. I'm thinking about ditching gEDA, DesignSpark, and Proteous. In that case a Simulation section could be added?

I think I'd prefer it to be "Simulation and Modelling", again to subtly emphasise the breath of the subject and to note the distinction between the two. Perhaps if you "build this better mousetrap", posts will automagically appear.

I have no strong opinion about those specific packages. My preference is usually to have the generic (as distinct from general) topics at the top of a list and the specific topics below. That's because I like generic topics rather than boring stackexchange-like "which button do I press to frobnitz the squirdle" questions.

Having said that, I'm not too worried about where pixels appear, and my normal trajectory on the site is the "new replies" followed by "unread posts", with searches where necessary. My main use for the front page is when I need to decide where to start a new topic.

[asmi]

Given the zero outcry over splitting FPGA from micros, I take it that wasn't a problem...
BTW, I shuffled a few other categories around but I suspect no one really noticed.

I'm interested in both micros and FPGAs so now I have to watch two subforums instead of one, but since I seem to be in the minority, I can live with that.

[EEVblog]

My main use for the front page is when I need to decide where to start a new topic.

I suspect that's common for most users?

[tggzzz]

My main use for the front page is when I need to decide where to start a new topic.

I suspect that's common for most users?

In my experience that is 100% the case, but anecdotes are not data. You might have data available

[EEVblog]

My main use for the front page is when I need to decide where to start a new topic.

I suspect that's common for most users?

In my experience that is 100% the case, but anecdotes are not data. You might have data available

I can see where people are on the forum at any given time, but AFAIK that data is not logged.

[richardman]

Thanks for reverting it. I have seen this sort of split before, mainly in photography forums, as a way to "draw more participation, but usually ends in disaster.

[tautech]

In that case a Simulation section could be added?

Fine idea. 

I tried to get something along those lines going a few years back as guidance for those venturing into simulation:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/circuit-simulation-(sticky)/


The rest of your forum tweaks are coming along nice and they should accommodate forum growth well. 

Do you want us to report threads that we see that would best be in one of the new categories, or have you mods got enough to do ?

[wilfred]

Do you want us to report threads that we see that would best be in one of the new categories, or have you mods got enough to do ?

Should we start with reporting posts discussing generic new forum categories like "Simulation" in a thread titled "FORUM: New Brand specific categories" in the board set up for discussing microcontrollers.

Probably not.

[westfw]

(Thank you for switching things back(ish)!)(I don't think I've ever seen a forum change, that had been actually implemented, re-done so quickly (even with lots of negative feedback!  I appreciate that it must have been a significant amount of effort to split up the previous contents, and then re-combine (or at least revert) back again.)

[Geoff_S]

Still not sure why all the arduino threads are sitting over in the Embedded Computing forum "Everything embedded computer related. Single board computers like the Raspberry Pi, BeagleBoard etc Hardware and Software"...

[wilfred]

Still not sure why all the arduino threads are sitting over in the Embedded Computing forum "Everything embedded computer related. Single board computers like the Raspberry Pi, BeagleBoard etc Hardware and Software"...

I raised the question of a separate (from AVR) Arduino board earlier in this thread. Dave responded thus. "Arduino goes in the new embedded computing section."

If there is a good case to be made you should. I think the presence of Arduino in Embedded is tenuous. At best the level of abstraction that defines Arduino as distinct from a bare metal microcontroller could explain the choice. Just.

I have come to the conclusion that the structure of the forum is better done for the members benefit by fitting it to the intersecting  interests of members rather than by some technology architecture. Bring members together rather than separate devices.

[tggzzz]

I have come to the conclusion that the structure of the forum is better done for the members benefit by fitting it to the ...

If you divide it this way, it will be wrong in that way.
If you divide it that way, it will be wrong in this way.

Choose your disadvantages. That's what Yahoo!'s directory did.

[asmi]

If you divide it this way, it will be wrong in that way.
If you divide it that way, it will be wrong in this way.

So why dividing than? Why can't it be in both subforums at the same time - when both subforums would contain a link to the same thread?
So many problems like these would get a trivial solution if you allow a single thread to belong to multiple subforums at the same time. You can than think of subforums as "tags" of sort.

[tggzzz]

If you divide it this way, it will be wrong in that way.
If you divide it that way, it will be wrong in this way.

So why dividing than? Why can't it be in both subforums at the same time - when both subforums would contain a link to the same thread?
So many problems like these would get a trivial solution if you allow a single thread to belong to multiple subforums at the same time. You can than think of subforums as "tags" of sort.

Tags (and similar) bring their own problems.