You are in the wrong market. You need to go to india if you really want to 
be in this market.
Good luck!

"Rob Miller" <r...@coe.neu.edu> wrote in message 
news:1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I am a recent graduate with a BS in Computer engineering.  I am
> interested in working with embedded systems, but I have no experience
> with them.  I've done basic C/C++ programming and very little ASM.
>
> What steps should I take to learn?
>
> I have some books and have been looking at the book recommendation in
> this group, but I feel hands on learning is the best way to go.
>
> So, I guess I am looking for a cheap development system I can use at
> home to learn embedded systems and something that is popular enough
> that I can use the knowledge gained to help get a job working with
> embedded systems.
>
> Any and all help is much appreciated.
>
> thanks,
> Rob
> 

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 09:34:12 +0800, Dan <d...@dontspammecauseidontlikit.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:58:02 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
><j...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I expected the disagreement, Dan.  No problem.
>
>I had a feeling I might cause a bit of controversy with my original
>statement.  :-)  Thanks for you thoughts.

No problem, as I said.

>>I'll just say that packing 16k lines of C++ into a project, with only 20 lines
>>of assembly, this means to me that you are probably programming on a relatively
>>general purpose computing platform and perhaps even with some unstated library
>>or operating system support that you forgot to mention, as well.
>
>I'm using a 16 bit processor with a bit of memory and some serial
>ports and i/o pins.  If that's not embedded I don't know what is.  The
>only os type support that I have, queues and timers and such, is what
>I've written myself.  The compiler has some standard C library
>routines, all the more reason to use C.

Sounds embedded.

>>Those special skills may include:
>> * analog and digital design skills
>> * schematic reading skills
><snipped>
>
>I agree with you here, these are all useful skills.  But knowledge of
>assembly would be at the bottom of my list.  I'll pick up an
>oscilloscope lead 100 times before I'll look at the assembly output of
>the compiler.

That's not what I brought up, though.

>Even 8 bit processors and little PICs have C compilers.  People keep
>telling me how you need assembly to optimise for either speed or size,
>but I've never found a need for it.  Maybe that was the case 20 years
>ago when memory  size and processor speed and was more of an issue.

I've written, many times here in this group in the past, specific and useful
semantics that simply are not available via a C or C++ compiler.  Look it up via
google.  That you are NOT aware of them makes my point clearly.

>It's much more difficult to write structured code in assembly
>language.

Which, true or otherwise, doesn't bear at all on why I said what I said.

>It takes way longer to write and it's harder to debug.

Sometimes.  But that statement is most certainly true if you refuse to become
competent at it.  When you aren't skilled at it, it's a given that you'd be
right.

>It's also a lot harder for someone else to come in afterwards and look
>at the code.

... and if you are hiring, it may be easier to find programmers who are familiar
with C.  I won't argue.

>I can't imagine anyone writing anything in assembly
>unless they absolutely had to, and I can't see very many places where
>there's really a need.

My point is that good familiarity with assembly, whether or not it is required
for a specific project I have in mind, is valuable in my mind.  Having more
thinking tools, not less, is better.

I'd suggest to you that you think about the fact you don't even recognize some
of the unique values concerned.  I fully understand your points about C/C++ and
I agree with the value of using such languages in embedded work.  Yet you do NOT
understand my points.  Perhaps this is because of your lack, not mine.  Just a
thought for you to ponder.

Jon

Darin Johnson wrote:
> "Ulf Samuelsson" <u...@a-t-m-e-l.com> writes:
>
>> It is OK to know something about assembler, but
>> it is probably OK to know just so much that
>> you can figure out if you need to improve your C code or not.
>
> If I were looking at job candidates, I would feel much more
> confident that candidates that knew assembler had a better
> feel for low level machine concepts than candidates that only
> knew C.  It isn't a matter of whether they'd actually have to
> _use_ assembler or not, but if they know that the board is not
> just a black box to put applications on top of.

Yep, that is the same point I am trying to make.


> Ie, a C-only programmer is more likely to think that "count++" is
> an atomic operation than a C programmer who's had exposure to
> assembler.
>
> Even if it is a 20 lines versus 16,000 lines issue, those 16,000
> lines probably weren't written by someone with C-only experience.

-- 
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
u...@a-t-m-e-l.com
This message is intended to be my own personal view and it
may or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 00:49:40 GMT, Darin Johnson <darin_@_usa_._net>
wrote:

>Ie, a C-only programmer is more likely to think that "count++" is
>an atomic operation than a C programmer who's had exposure to
>assembler.

This is a bit dangerous example, since if the programmer is first
exposed to a processor with atomic memory location increments, this
assumption may be permanent, unless he/she studies to code for any
future processor as thoroughly as the first processor :-)

Paul

Darin Johnson wrote:

> Dan <d...@dontspammecauseidontlikit.com> writes:
> 
>> GNU gcc is free, exellent, and C++.  You're definately not limited to
>> C.  There are binaries available for the Hitachi processors and for
>> many others as well.
> 
> Speaking of Hitachi, the Lego Mindstorms might be a possibility for
> learning embedded systems.  It uses the Hitachi H8/300.  The
> disadvantages are that the ROM documentation is lacking, but there are
> lots of web sites out there that could help.  There's no debugger
> interface either.  There are definately better systems to learn on.
> However, it's relatively inexpensive and can be a lot of fun.

If you search around for RCX Forth you probably will find a nicer 
environment for the little Lego block. I think it may give you some debug 
capability (although I haven't tried it myself). Best to read the 
comp.lang.forth newsgroup archive on Google first as there have been a few 
threads on that topic.

-- 
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett ....................<email://p...@amleth.demon.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy .....<http://www.amleth.demon.co.uk/>;
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-811095
Going Forth Safely ....EBA. http://www.electric-boat-association.org.uk/
********************************************************************

"Rob Miller" <r...@coe.neu.edu> wrote in message 
news:1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I am a recent graduate with a BS in Computer engineering.  I am
> interested in working with embedded systems, but I have no experience
> with them.  I've done basic C/C++ programming and very little ASM.
>
> What steps should I take to learn?
>
> I have some books and have been looking at the book recommendation in
> this group, but I feel hands on learning is the best way to go.
>
> So, I guess I am looking for a cheap development system I can use at
> home to learn embedded systems and something that is popular enough
> that I can use the knowledge gained to help get a job working with
> embedded systems.
>
> Any and all help is much appreciated.
>
> thanks,
> Rob

dev boards etc

Cheap , www.futurlec.com

www.dontronics.com

www.olimex.com  make some cheap boards
buy them from www.sparkfun.com/shop

digikey.com  sell some freescale dev / eval boards
Cheap 16 bit dsp board
US$70 from digikey.com  MC56F8300DSK : Developers Starter Kit includes board 
with 56f8323
http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MC56F8323EVM&parentCode=null&nodeId=0127953905

docs for the kit
http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/Motorola/Web%20Data/MC56F8300DEMOPB.pdf
http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/Motorola/Web%20Data/MC56F8300DBUM.pdf

Kits come with board , cables and cd
cd includes docs and version of code warrior limit of 16KB

do part search on digikey for MC56F8300DSK

 Cheapish (US$99 - 200) dsp and arm7 boards
www.newmicros.com

 Gumstick  Intel xscale 200 -400MHz (arm9 ? ) from US$109 - 300
http://www.gumstix.com/products.html
linux single board or box  embedded systems
http://www.gumstix.com/spexwaysmalls.html
http://www.gumstix.com/spexboards.html


Have a look at http://www.ganssle.com/

For pics the Myke Predko books are quite good.

for more on pics and avrs
http://www.dontronics.com/auto.html

For sx  (pic clone) see www.parallax.com
also www.xgamestation.com

For fpgas
xilinx  has a cheap starter kit
http://www.xilinx.com/products/spartan3/s3boards.htm
its made by digilentinc
https://www.digilentinc.com/Sales/Product.cfm?Prod=S3BOARD
who make addon boards
also have a 1 million gate version of the spartan3 board
(add board to your cart then can select options on fpga size)

www.fpga4fun.com

books like
Logic and Computer design Fundamentals by Mano and Kime
or
Digital design Principles and Practices.

Also have a look at doing your own simple circuit board
designs. Use a program like Eagle that has a freeware low end version
to get started http://www.cadsoft.de/

Alex  Gibson 

On  1-Mar-2005, Dan <d...@dontspammecauseidontlikit.com> wrote:

> I can't imagine anyone writing anything in assembly
> unless they absolutely had to, and I can't see very many places where
> there's really a need.

I just finished a project (MSP430) that's about 98 % C and 2 % assembly, but
I think that an understanding of assembly is essential. I may code the
application in C, but I think in assembly.

-Hershel Roberson

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 09:34:12 +0800, Dan wrote:

> It's much more difficult to write structured code in assembly
> language. 
Not if you know how to code.

>It takes way longer to write and it's harder to debug.
Yes and No. 

> It's also a lot harder for someone else to come in afterwards and look
> at the code. 
Not if you write structured code and comment it properly

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:10:05 GMT, Hershel Roberson wrote:

> I may code the
> application in C, but I think in assembly.

Yes. That's it exactly.


Bob

Dan <d...@dontspammecauseidontlikit.com> wrote in
news:p...@4ax.com: 

> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:58:02 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
> <j...@easystreet.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I expected the disagreement, Dan.  No problem.
> 
> I had a feeling I might cause a bit of controversy with my original
> statement.  :-)  Thanks for you thoughts.
> 
>>I'll just say that packing 16k lines of C++ into a project, with only
>>20 lines of assembly, this means to me that you are probably
>>programming on a relatively general purpose computing platform and
>>perhaps even with some unstated library or operating system support
>>that you forgot to mention, as well. 
> 
> I'm using a 16 bit processor with a bit of memory and some serial
> ports and i/o pins.  If that's not embedded I don't know what is.  The
> only os type support that I have, queues and timers and such, is what
> I've written myself.  The compiler has some standard C library
> routines, all the more reason to use C.
> 
>>Those special skills may include:
>> * analog and digital design skills * schematic reading skills
> <snipped>
> 
> I agree with you here, these are all useful skills.  But knowledge of
> assembly would be at the bottom of my list.  I'll pick up an
> oscilloscope lead 100 times before I'll look at the assembly output of
> the compiler.
> 
> Even 8 bit processors and little PICs have C compilers.  People keep
> telling me how you need assembly to optimise for either speed or size,
> but I've never found a need for it.  Maybe that was the case 20 years
> ago when memory  size and processor speed and was more of an issue.

I have, specifically, using the Keil C51 for an 8051.  I found that I 
could significantly improve the size and speed by tweaking the C code 
based on looking at the assembly output.  Memory size and processor speed 
is still a very significant issue in many applications.

> 
> It's much more difficult to write structured code in assembly
> language.  It takes way longer to write and it's harder to debug.
> It's also a lot harder for someone else to come in afterwards and look
> at the code.  I can't imagine anyone writing anything in assembly
> unless they absolutely had to, and I can't see very many places where
> there's really a need.
> 

If you are well versed in the particular assembly language, and your 
predecessors documented it reasonably well, then it is not at all 
difficult to debug, or come along afterwards and modify the code.  I 
speak from many years of experience at working on poorly, and incorrectly 
documented assembly language code as well as well documented assembly 
language code.

-- 
Richard