Related
I want to write a program that monitors packets in and packets out, or in other words, network statistics. Is there any useful class in cocoa? I know there are some existed tools, but it will be a sub-routine of my program. So I must implement on my own.
Thanks a lot!
P.S. I only want to calculate one program / process 's statistics rather than the whole system.
You won't find much in Cocoa, you'll probably have to delve deeper into Core stuff. In the recently released pool of WWDC videos, they have a video on Core OS Networking that covers the Mac and iPhone platforms both, and gives a pretty good overview of some of the classes you might be needing to look at.
Might not hurt to give the Core Networking stuff a glance, since whatever you're monitoring is most likely using it:
http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/Networking/Conceptual/CFNetwork/Introduction/Introduction.html
I'd like to start messing around programming and building something with an Arduino board, but I can't think of any great ideas on what to build. Do you have any suggestions?
I show kids, who have never programmed, or done any electronics before, to make a simple 'Phototrope', a light sensitive robot, in about a day. It costs under £30 (GBP) including Arduino, electronics and off-the-shelf mechanics. If folks really get into mobile robots, the initial project can grow and grow (which I feel is part of the fun).
There are international robot competitions which require relatively simple mechanics to get started, e.g. in the UK http://www.tic.ac.uk/micromouse/toh.asp
Ultimate performance require specially built machines (for lightness) , but folks would get creditable results with an Arduino Nano, the right electronics, and a couple of good motors.
A line following robot is the classic mobile robot project. The track can be as simple as electrical tape. Pololu have some fun videos about their near-Arduino 3PI robot. The sensors are about £1, and there are a bunch of simple motor+gearbox kits from lots of places for under £10. Add a few £ for motor control, and you have autonomous robot mechanics, in need of programming! Add an Infrared Remote receiver (about £1), and you can drive it around using your TV remote. Add a small solar cell, use an Arduino analogue input to measure voltage, and it can find the sun. With a bit more electronics, it can 'feed' itself. And so it gets more sophisticated. Each step might be no more than a few hours to a few days effort, and you'll find new problems to solve and learn from.
IMHO, the most interesting (low-cost) competitions are maze solving robots. The international competition rule require the robot to explore a walled maze, usually using Infrared sensors, and calculate their optimal route. The challenges include keeping track of current position to near-millimeter accuracy, dealing with real world's unpredictably noisy environment and optimising straight-line speed with shortest distance cornering.
All that in 16K of program, and 1K RAM, with real-time interrupt handling (as much as 100K interrupts/second for some motor systems), sensor sampling, motor speed control, and maze solving is an interesting programming challenge. (You might make it 'easy' with 32K of program, and 2K RAM :-)
I'm working on a 'constrained' robot challenge (based on Arduino) so that robot performance is mainly about programming rather than having a big budget.
Start small and build up to something more complex. Control servos. Blink LEDs. Debounce inputs. Read analog sensors. Display text on an LCD. Then put it together.
Despite the name, I like the "Evil Genius" book for PIC microcontrollers because of the small, easily digestible projects that tend to build on one another. It is, of course, aimed at PIC programmers rather than the Arduino, but the material covered will be useful no matter what you're developing on.
I know Arduino is trendy right now, but I also like the Teensy++ development board because of its low price-point ($24), breadboard-compatible PCB, relatively high pin count, Linux development environment, USB connectivity, and not needing a programmer. Worth considering for smaller projects.
If you come up with something cool, let me know. I need an excuse to do something fun :)
Bicycle-related ideas:
theft alarm (perhaps with radio link to a base station which is connected to a PC by Ethernet)
fancy trip computer (with reed switch or opto sensor on wheel)
integrate with a GPS telematics unit (trip logging) with Ethernet/USB download of logged data to PC. Also has an interesting PC programming component--integrate with Google Maps.
Other ideas:
Clock with automatic time sync from:
GPS receiver
FM radio signal with embedded RDS data with CT code
Digital radio (DAB+)
Mobile phone tower (would it require a subscription and SIM card for this receive-only operation?)
NTP server via:
Ethernet
WiFi
ZigBee (with a ZigBee coordinator that gets its time from e.g. Ethernet or GPS)
Mains electricity smart meter via ZigBee (I'm interested now that smart meters are being introduced in Victoria, Australia; not sure if the smart meters broadcast the time info though, and whether it requires authentication)
Metronome
Instrument tuner
This reverse-geocache puzzle box was an awesome Arduino project. You could take this to the next step, e.g. have a reverse-geocache box that gives out a clue only at a specific location, and then using physical clues found at that location coupled with the next clue from the box, determine where to go for the next step.
You could do one of the firefighting robot competitions. We built a robot in university for my bachelor's final project, but didn't have time to enter the competition. Plus the robot needed some polish anyway... :)
Video here.
Mind you, this was done with a Motorola HC12 and a C compiler, and most components outside the microcontroller board were made from scratch, so it took longer than it should. Should be much easier with prefab components.
Path finding/obstacle navigation is typically a good project to start with. If you want something practical, take a look at how iRobot vacuums the floor and come up with a better scheme.
Depends on your background and if you want practical or cool. On the practical side, a remote control could be a simple starting point. It's got buttons and lights but isn't too demanding.
For a cool project maybe a Simon-style memory game or anything with lights & noises (thinking theremin-style).
I don't have suggestions or perhaps something like a line follower robot. I could help you with some links for inspiration
Arduino tutorials
Top 40 Arduino Projects of the Web
20 Unbelievable Arduino Projects
I'm currently developing plans to automate my 30 year old model train layout.
A POV device could be fun to build (just google for POV Arduino). POV means persistence of vision.
I just watched Google Wave Keynote video on Google I/O and I must say I was very impressed with pretty much everything mentioned in the video, the possibilities with Google Wave are enormous.
I'd like to ask if there are any projects using Google Wave already in beta (usable stage) and I would also like to know when is Google Wave supposed to be available for the rest of us who didn't attend Google I/O.
As great as the technology is. It is safe to say it will only be used to find more inventive ways for us to:
Not socialize in real-life
Make communications that would be ill-advised in real-life
Buy things we haven't seen in real life
Unlearn things that are useful in real life (like spelling)
Joking aside, you can signup for the sandbox (as I have) and play around with apps and robots and whatever. You can Sign up here for the developer preview and have a look at what is going on!
You could also run your own wave setup using the information here and experiment with the down-and-dirty!
You can request developer access to the wave sandbox at: https://services.google.com/fb/forms/wavesignupfordev/
It might take a few weeks.
How can I make my own microcontroller? I've done some work using GAL chips and programmed a chip to do simple commands such as add, load, move, xor, and output, but I'd like to do something more like a real microcontroller.
How can I go about doing this? I've read a little bit about FPGA and CPLD, but not very much, and so was looking for some advice on what to get and how to start developing on it.
Look here for a good wiki book. I had some coursework I wrote when I was teaching Electronic Eng, but I couldn't find it around. When I was teaching, most of the students were happy to use the schematic capture tools in the Xilinx Foundation package. They've moved onto ISE and WebPACK now. You can download the WebPack for free, which is useful, and it has schematic capture and simulation in it.
If you really want to shine, learn VHDL or Verilog (VHDL seems to be more common where I've worked, but that is only a small smattering of places) and code the design rather than enter it through the GUI.
If you know ANYTHING at all about digital logic design (and some HDL) I rekon you can have a somewhat functional 8-bit microprocessor simulating in VHDL in about 2 days. You're not going to build anything blazingly fast or enormously powerful in that time but it's a good starting point to grow from. If you have to learn about digital design, factor in a couple of days to learn how the tools work and simulate some basic logic circuits before moving onto the uP design.
Start learning the basics of digital systems, and how to build a binary adder. Move on to building an ALU to handle addition, subtraction, and, or, xor, etc and then a sequencer to read opcodes from RAM and supply them to the execution unit.
You can get fancy with instruction set design, but I'd recommend starting out REALLY simple until you have your head around whats going on, then throw it out and start again with something more complex.
Once you have the design simulating nicely you can gauge its complexity and purchase a device to suit. You should look at a development system for the device family you've chosen. Pick a device bigger than what you need for development because it's nice to be able to add extra instrumentation to debug it when it's running, and you almost certainly won't have optimized your design in the early stages of getting it on the device.
EDIT: Colin Mackenzie has a good tutorial about uC design and some FPGA boards as well as a bit of other stuff.
You may want to have a look around OpenCores.org, a "forge" site for open source IP core development. Also, consider getting yourself a development board like one of these to play around with.
Much of the tools ecosystem revolves around VHDL, although Avalda is working on tools to compile F# for FPGAs.
I saw a textbook once that stepped through building a machine from TTL chips. This had the same instruction set as a PDP-8, which is very - and I mean very - simple, so the actual machine architecture is easy to implement in this way.
The PDP-8 FAQ mentions a book: "The Art of Digital Design," second edition, by Franklin Prosser and David Winkel (Prentice-Hall, 1987, ISBN 0-13-046780-4). It also mentions people implementing it in FPGA's.
Given the extreme simplicity of this CPU architecture and availability of PDP-8 code or reference implementations it might be a good starting point to warm up with.
Alternatively, an acquaintance of mine implemented a thumb (cut down ARM) on a FPGA as a university project run by one Steve Furber (a prominent Acorn alumnus). Given that this could be compressed into a format small enough for a university project it might also be a good start.
To play with soft-core microprocessors, I like the Spartan 3 Starter Board from Digilent just because it has 1M of static RAM. SDRAM and DDR RAM are harder to get going, you know.
The leds, switches and a simple serial interface are a plus to debug and communicate.
As someone already pointed out, OpenCores.org is a good place to find working examples. I used the Plasma uC to write some papers while on university.
A microcontroller can be as simple as a ROM (instruction*2^x + (clock phase) is the address, outputs are the control signals, and you're good to go). Or it can be a complex harry beast with three arms and branch prediction support hardware.
Can you give more details about your aspirations?
After searching some very helpful links by all of you, I came across this Wikiversity course.
One of the first sentences is, "Have you ever thought to build your own microprocessor?"
Xilinx has a MicroBlaze and a PicoBlaze soft controller for its FPGAs. The latter is free, while, IIRC, the Microblaze is to be paid for.
As its name suggests the PicoBlaze is a small processor, which has its limitations, but OTOH is compact enough to run on a CPLD. Anyway a nice processor to get you started.
Pablo Bleyer has a PicoBlaze-compatible PacoBlaze. PacoBlaze was written in Verilog (which, like Adam said, less common than VHDL).
You need a big fpga for a little mcu.
You need a fpga with the correct hardware blocks if you need things like AD.
You need a soft core to put into the fpga.
But how about to just play around with a normal MCU before this project,
so you kind of know where you are going? How about some AVR:s from Atmel.
You can get free samples of pic micro controllers at this site. Last I knew, you don't even have to pay shipping.
http://www.microchip.com/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=64
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Given my background as a generalist, I can cover much of the area from analog electronics to writing simple applications that interface to a RDBMS backend.
I currently work in a company that develops hardware to solve industry-specific problems. We have an experienced programmer that have written business apps, video games, and a whole bunch of other stuff for PC's. But when I talk to him about doing low-level programming, he simultaneously express interest and also doubt/uncertainty about joining the project.
Even when talking about PC's, he seems to be more comfortable operating at the language level than the lower-level stuff (instruction sets, ISR's). Still, he's a smart guy, and I think he'd enjoy the work once he is over the initial learning hump. But maybe that's my own enthusiasm for low-level stuff talking... If he was truly interested, maybe he would already have started learning stuff in that direction?
Do you have experience in making that software-to-hardware (or low-level software) transition? Or, better yet, of taking a software only guy, and transitioning him to the low-level stuff?
Edit:
P.S. I'd love to hear from the responders what their own background is -- EE, CS, both?
At the end of the day, everything is an API.
Need to write code for an SPI peripheral inside a microcontroller? Well, get the datasheet or hardware manual, and look at the SPI peripheral. It's one, big, complex API.
The problem is that you have to understand the hardware and some basic EE fundamentals in order to comprehend what the API means. The datasheet isn't written by and for SW developers, it was written for hardware engineers, and maybe software engineers.
So it's all from the perspective of the hardware (face it - the microcontroller company is a hardware company filled with hardware/asic engineers).
Which means the transition is by no means simple and straightforward.
But it's not difficult - it's just a slightly different domain. If you can implement a study program, start off with Rabbit Semiconductor's kits. There's enough software there so a SW guy can really dig in with little effort, and the HW is easy to deal with because everything is wrapped in nice little libraries. When they want to do something complex they can dig into the direct hardware access and fiddle at the lower level, but at the same time they can do some pretty cool things such as build little webservers or pan/tilt network cameras. There are other companies with similar offerings, but Rabbit is really focused on making hardware easy for software engineers.
Alternately, get them into the Android platform. It looks like a unix system to them, until they want to do something interesting, and then they'll have the desire to attack that little issue and they'll learn about the hardware.
If you really want to jump in the deep end, go with an arduino kit - cheap, free compilers and libraries, pretty easy to start off with, but you have to hook wires up to do something interesting, which might be too big of a hurdle for a reluctant software engineer. But a little help and a few nudges in the right direction and they will be absolutely thrilled to have a little LED display that wibbles* like the nightrider lights...
-Adam
*Yes, that's a technical engineering term.
The best embedded programmers I've worked with are EE trained and learned SW on the job. The worst embedded developers are recent CS graduates who think SW is the only way to solve a problem. I like to think of embedded programming as the bottom of the SW pyramid. It's a stable abstraction layer/foundation that makes life easy for the app developers.
"Hard" is an extremely relative term. If you're used to thinking in the tight, sometimes convoluted way you need to for small embedded code (for example, you're a driver developer), then certainly it's not "hard".
Not to "bash" (no pun intended) shell scripters, but if you write perl and shell scripts all day, then it might very well be "hard".
Likewise if you're a UI guy for Windows. It's a different kind of thinking.
Why embedded development is "hard":
1) The context may switch to an interrupt between each machine instruction. Since high level language constructs may map to multiple assembly instructins, this might even be within a line of code, e.g. long var = 0xAAAA5555. If accessed in an interrupt service routine, in a 16 bit processore var might only be half set.
2) Visibility into the system is limited. You may not even have output to Hyperterm unless you write it yourself. Emulators don't always work that well or consistently (though they are way better than they used to be). You will have to know how to use oscilloscopes and logic analyzers.
3) Operations take time. For example, say your serial transmitter uses an interrupt to signal when it is time to send another byte. You could write 16 bytes to a transmit buffer, then clear interrupts and wonder why your message is never sent. Timing in general is a tricky part of embedded programming.
4) You are subject to subtle race conditions that occur only rarely and are very difficult to debug.
5) You have to read the manual. A lot. You can't make it work by fooling around. Sometimes 20 things have to be set up correctly to get what you are after.
6) The hardware doesn't always work or is easy to damage, and it takes a while to figure out that you broke it.
7) Software repairs in embedded systems are usually very expensive. You can't just update a web page. A recall can erase any profit you made on the device.
There are probably more but I've got this race condition to solve...
This is very subjective I guess, his reasons could be many. But if he's like me, I know where he's coming from. Let me explain.
In my career I've dedicated 6 years to the telecom industry, working a lot with embedding SDK middleware into low-end mobile phones etc.
Most embedded environments I've experienced are like harsh weather for a programmer, you constantly have to overcome limitations in resources etc. Some might find this a challenge and enjoy it for the challenge itself, some might feel close to "the real stuff" - the hardware, some might feel it limits their creativity.
I'm the kind who feels it limits my creativity.
I enjoy being back in Windows desktop environment and flap my wings with elaborate class designs, stretch my legs a few clockcycles extra, use unnecessary amounts of memory for diagnostics etc.
On certain embedded units in the past, I hardly had support for fseek() (an ANSI C standard file function). If lucky, a "watchdog" could give clues to where something crashed. Not to mention the pain of communicating with the user in single-threaded preemptive swamps.
Well, you know what I'm getting at. In my opinion it's not necessarily hard, but it's quite a leap, with potentially little reuse of your current experience.
Regards
Robert
There is a very real difference in mindset from user-level application development (ie, general purpose PC or Web applications) to hard deadline, real-time response application development (ie, the hardware/software interface).
Interrupts, instruction sets, context switching and hard resource constraints are relatively unknown to your average developer. I'm assuming here that your 'average developer' is not an Electrical/Electronic or other Engineer by training.
The transition for this developer you mention may be well outside his comfort zone. Some of us like stretching like that. Others of us may have decided the view isn't worth the climb.
Likewise, folks who've been in the hardware area (ie, Engineers) often have difficulty with the assumptions and language of software development.
These are gross generalities, of course, but hopefully give some insight.
He needs to be comfortable with the low-level stuff, but mostly for debugging and field issues. There is a serious learning curve depending on the architecture, but not impossible. On the other hand, the low-level code takes (in general) more time and debugging than higher-level code. So if you need to be going back to low-level all the time, then perhaps something isn't right in the design. Even for the embedded controls I've built, I spend the vast majority of time in high-level code. Although when you have issues, it is extremely advantageous to have a very good low-level knowledge.
I am an EE turned Software Engineer. I prefer programming low level. Most software developers classically trained that I know do not want to operate at this level they want apis to call. So for me it is a win win, I create the low level driver and api for them to use. There is a "new" degree, at least new since I went to college, called Computer Engineer. Hmm, it might be an electrical engineering degree not computer science, but it is a nice mix of software and digital hardware basics. The individuals that I have worked with from this field are much more comfortable with low level.
If the individual is not comfortable or willing then place them somewhere where they are comfortable. Let them do documentation or work on the user interface. If all of the work at the company requires low level work then this individual needs to do it or find another job. Dont sugar coat it.
I also think they will enjoy it once they get over the hump, the freedom you have at that level, not hindered by operating systems, etc. Recently I witnessed a few co-workers experience for the first time seeing their software run under simulation. Every net within the processor and other on chip peripherals. No you dont have a table on a gui (debugger) showing the current state of the memory, you have to look at the memory bus, look for the address you are interested in, look for a read or write signal and the data bus. I worry about the day that silicon arrives and they no longer have this level of visibility. Will be like an addict in detox.
Well, I cut my teeth on hardware when I started reading Popular Electronics at age 14 – this was BEFORE personal computers, in case you were wondering and if you weren’t well, you know anyway. lol
I’ve done the low level bit-bang stuff on the 8048/51 microprocessor, done PIC’s and some other single chip variations and of course Rabbit Semiconductor. (great if you're into C). That’s great (and fun) stuff; Yes, there is a different way of looking at things – not harder, but some of that information is a bit harder to come by as it isn’t as discussed as the software issues. (Of course, this depends on the circle of friends with which you associate, eh).
But, having said all of this, I want to remind you of a technology that started to bridge the gap for programmers into the world of hardware and has since become a very MAJOR player and that is the .NET micro framework. You can find information on this technology at the following;
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/embedded/bb267253.aspx
It addresses some of the same issues that .NET web development addressed in that you can use some (quite a bit, actually) of your existing PC based knowledge in the new environments – Some caution, of course, as your target machine doesn’t have 4 GIG of RAM – it may only have 64K (or less)
Starting in version 2.5 of the .NET micro framework, you have access to networking and web services – way kewl, eh? It doesn’t stop there … Want to control the lights in your house? How about a temp recording station? All with the skills you already have. Well, mostly -- Check out the link.
The SDK plugs into your VisualStudio IDE. There are a number of “Development Kits” available for a very reasonable amount of cash – Now, what would normally take a big learning curve in components, building a circuit board and wiring up “stuff” can be done reasonably easy with a dev kit and some pretty simple code – Of course, you may need to do the occasional bit bang operation, but more and more sensor folks are providing .NET micro framework drivers – so, the hardware development may be closer than you think…
Hope it helps...
I like both. Embedded challenges me and really gets me going in a visceral way. Making something that affects the macro physical world is very satisfactory. But I've had to do a lot of catch up on the electrical/electronics end, since my bachelor's is in computer science. I've a pretty generalist background, where I studied ai, graphics, compilers, natural language, etc. Now I'm doing graduate work in embedded systems. The really tough part is adjusting to the lack of runtime facilities like an operating system.
Low-level embedded programming also tends to include low-level debugging. Which (in my experience) usually involves (at least) the use of an oscilloscope. Unless your colleague is going to be happy spending at least some of the time in physical contact with the hardware and thinking in terms of microseconds and volts, I'd be tempted to leave them be.
Agreed on the "hard" term is quite relative.
I would say different, as you would need to employ different development patterns that you won't use in other kind of environment.
The time constraint for instance could requires a learning curve.
However being curious, would be a quality for a developer, wouldn't be?
You are right in that anyone with enough knowledge not to feel completely lost in an area (over the hump?) will enjoy the challenges of learning something new.
I myself would feel quite nervous being moving to the level of instruction sets etc as there is a huge amount of background knowledge needed to feel comfortable in the environment.
It may make a difference if you are able to support the developer in learning how to do this. Having someone there you can ask and talk through issue with is a huge help in that sort of domain change.
It may be worth having the developer assigned to a smaller project with others as a first step and see how that goes. If he expresses enthusiasm to try another project, things should flow on from there.
I would say it is not any harder, it just requires a different knowledge set, different considerations.
I think that it depends on the way that they program in their chosen environment, and the type of embedded work that you're talking about.
Working on an embedded linux platform, say, is a far smaller jump than trying to write code on an 8 bit platform with no operating system at all.
If they are the type of person that has an understanding of what is going on underneath the api and environment that they are used to, then it won't be too much of a stretch to move into embedded development.
However, if their world view stops at the high level api that they've been using, and they have no concept of anything beneath that, they are going to have a really hard time.
As a (very) general statement if they are comfortable working on multithreaded applications they will probably be ok, as that shares some of the same issues of data volatility that you have when working on embedded projects.
With all of that said, I've seen more embedded programmers successfully working in PC development than I have the reverse. (of course I might not have seen a fair cross section)
"But when I talk to him about doing low-level programming, he simultaneously express interest and also doubt/uncertainty about joining the project." -- That means you let him try and you prepare to hire someone else in case he doesn't pass the learning curve.
i began as a SW engineer i'm now HW one !
the important is to understand how it works and to be motivated !