My first PC had 66/33 MHz 80486 processor and 8 MB ram, 320 MB HDD. You could run AutoCAD, play Doom, Civilization, have dual boot for Linux, Windows 3.11 etc. It could compile Linux from source.
Not to mention if you build the kernel regularly, you benefit from incremental compilation. If you change a few non-header files the rebuild time can be as little as 2-3 minutes. Oh, and "make localdefconfig" will reduce your from-scratch compile times to the 5-15 minute mark. I highly doubt most kernel devs are building a distro configuration when testing (especially since they'd be testing either in a VM or on their local machine).
Like, for example?
Take for example Delphi which can compile millions of lines of code in under a minute or something ridiculous. Then we have D, Go, Rust, and such, they compile rather large codebases that would take C++ a good 30 minutes on high end hardware of today in shorter spans of time (not as familiar with how fast Rust compiles, but I know Go and D do pretty nicely, especially if you enable concurrency for D), which probably takes those same 30 minutes on high end hardware from about a decade ago.
Sadly from what I have heard C / C++ has to run through source files numerous times before it finally compiles the darn thing into anything meaningful. Facebook made a preprocessor in D to speed things up for them, it technically didn't have to be coded in D, but Walter did write the preprocessor for them, so he gets to pick whatever language.
In the early days, clang was much faster in compilation than gcc. Over the years, it has improved on optimization output but as a consequence has lost the compilation speed.
There are many examples for https://godbolt.org/ to show how much work the optimizer does. As example, the http://eigen.tuxfamily.org library relies on the optimizer to generate optimized code for all sorts of combinations of algorithms.
C and C++ even though they have header files, make no restriction on what goes in a header file, so it takes a bit to figure out the dep graph.
But the preprocessor isn't what makes compiling C++ slow. It's a combination of the complex grammar, and ahead of time optimization of a (mostly) static language. Turns out you can compile code really fast if you don't actually try to optimize it.
That was on a second-hand Pentium-S. I probably wasn't doing it right.
Linux 4.x is over 150 megs, gzipped. Just the lines in the arch/x86 folder are more than the total lines in Linux 1.0.
We ran Windows 3.0 and my father configured a boot entry for running Doom or Ultima 7, which required so much memory that it wasn't possible to run Windows, only DOS.
I remember feeling a bit envious about my neighbor having the more powerful 486, which could run Doom much faster than in our PC
Worse part was my Dad in his wisdom bought a family PC without a Pentium, but a Cyrix P166. Had zero floating point processing. Ran like a damn dog on any 3D game.
Any Brits out there might remember Time Computers. On every back page of any newspaper ever selling PoS computers with whatever subpar hardware they could cram into a big beige box ;-)
I'm pushing 40, and still shake my head in wonder sometimes about just how much is possible at such small scale and cost.
But this is now turning into "when I were a lad..." :)
My XT had an 8088 @ ~4mhz in it, and we pushed it uphill to school both ways, in the snow!
It was multi-functional though. The power supply was inefficient enough to heat the room, while simultaneously being heavy enough to bludgeon large creatures for sustenance.
Something inside me misses the radiant heat, sitting here on a cold day with my chilly metallic laptop.
(Not even joking, by the way - literally how I got into computers and programming.)
you kids and you petabytes of ram! back in my day....
/s
(i'm looking forward for these comments to be commented on a certain website i'm not supposed to name)
ZX81: Z80/1KB RAM... more recently though PIC12 (C501 IIRC) ...
Ran windows 3.1, Civilisation (VGA graphics), railroad tycoon, Star Trek 25th anniversary - and could have them all installed at the same time. Other programs included championship manager 93, and I think day of the tentacle.
But it wouldn’t run Linux - 386 and above.
If I remember right it was almost $3k...but that included that blazing fast 300bps Hayes modem for wide-area networking.
And my mind was truly blown when we replaced the 2nd floppy with a more-memory-then-we-will-EVER-need 20MB hard drive...what could we do with all those bits??
Wow, I admire the far-sightedness of your parents, to give a child a computer at such a young age (and in those early days of PCs).
I was of a similar age when my dad brought home an NEC PC 9801 - with an 8086 CPU (8MHz), 640KB RAM, kanji (~3000 characters) font ROM, even a Japanese word processor. I think it ran MS-DOS 2~3.
"In 1987, NEC announced one million PC-98s were shipped."
That was a big wave, and I'm so glad my parents let me play with a computer as a "toy" - it was a huge influence on my mental development.
Kinda like the monolith moment in 2001: A Space Odyssey. :)
My friends around that age all had a wildly popular video game console called Nintendo "Fami-Com". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Entertainment_System
My parents refused to buy it, and instead let me play with the PC-98, where I learned BASIC, Turbo Pascal, even some 8086 assembly language.
I suppose if I have children, I'd discourage mobile phones/apps and instead give them Raspberry Pi, microcomputers, sensors, devices they can build stuff with.
First one I remember was a Commodore 64, along with a 600 page book full of BASIC that you could type out and record on cassette to have your own game. The book was total gibberish to anyone else; it was just pure code with no explanation. But that's what the C64 gave you; an interactive environment on boot where you could program a new game and write it to a cassette. By default. If you wanted to play a game you had to type `RUN` or maybe one or two other things to set it up. But you wouldn't know that, because you just had an interpreter on a basic blue and white screen.
Worst bit was the 10 minutes of spasmodic strobe animations that showed you the game was loading. But also each game controlled those loading animations. You had to know what game you wanted to play, and be sure of it, or otherwise you could just flip to the B-side and get a different game.
After that I think we had a BBC Micro at school but I'm not sure. All I remember is an adventure game and one of those classic 5" floppies. I still really love the look and feel of inserting a floppy and manually locking it in. Floppies and cassettes and VHS's minidiscs were truly fantastic for the time. They were still mechanical, unlike CDs.
Then on my dad's side I and my siblings got an Acorn PC and a bunch of random floppies. None of them made any sense but some of them did cool things when you ran them. I remember hiding from my family and putting in the floppies that made flashing colours and watching it until time passed.
Must have been 11 or 12 years old before we first got a PC and by that point I was utterly fascinated. It was some shitty off-the-shelf eMachines thing but it was the best we could get; I managed to retrofit a decent graphics card in it a little bit later.
8MB was pretty extravagant but it turned out to be a good call even though it could be had for half the price within a few years.
They have Wifi, and the ESP32 is actually very powerful and has two cores. They make for great DIY home automation/IOT devices and are pretty easy to work with.
Second this. The ESP8266 (a nodeMCU) is about as powerful as an Arduino Uno, is about half the size of a credit card, is very thin and costs around $3.
The wifi part is the biggest advantage. You can send sensor data directly to your server via simple http requests.
…and read this: https://docs.rust-embedded.org/book/
Highly recommended!
From there, can decide where your interests might be. To continue with Arduino hardware but without the IDE, I'd recommend _AVR Programming_ https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/make-avr-programming/97...
For other low level programming, Atmel's AVR Studio and their dev boards are incredibley newcomer friendly. Their source level debugger (with the debug coprocessor) is a miracle.
If you'd like to get into "big iron", Embedded Linux is amazing. Raspberry Pi is a great start (lots of GPIOS programmable from userspace). To get into embedded linux kernel programming, start with a loadable module on the Ras-Pi. Also, build/load your own Ras-Pi kernel.
Other folks suggested the ESP8266 which is also great fun to use.
Edit: Learn C. Lots and lots of C. Embedded dev is almost all C. A teeny bit of ASM, sometimes C++. But almost all of it will be in C.
Somewhat related, I've also used buildroot in both AWS and GCP to run workloads from read-only system images. Quite liberating in my opinion. No ssh, no ansible, etc. Build the image, launch it and off it goes. GCE even allows you to use the same boot disk, if mounted read-only, for multiple instances, perfect for these type of images.
[1] Espruino supports ES5, XS supports ECMAScript 2018 [2] https://www.moddable.com/faq.php#microcontrollers
At the moment, I'm doing a structured C book course (C: A Modern Approach), and I've also signed up for the edX course "Embedded Systems - Shape The World: Microcontroller Input/Output"
It uses the TM4C123 board, which from a look around seemed to be a decent enough board for a beginner. I'd seen complaints of Arduino, but I'm not experienced enough to know the validity of their claims.
Either way, I'm having fun. Not sure if I'd switch career as Web Dev is full of decent paying jobs but it's nice to have a hobby that's different from the day job.
And if you don't use the arduino ecosystem, but use an RTOS on an Arduino, it's a perfectly valid dev board for learning real embedded systems development.
I'm mostly just using it for the course which was highly recommended in multiple places, so I hope I won't encounter many of these bugs.
To be honest, the whole picking a board thing was quite overwhelming, with many recommendations, boards, variations, etc. Hopefully once I've finished the course I'll have some more knowledge to help me pick the next board.
ESP8266's can also run NodeMCU, which is Lua but node.js stuff translates super easily: https://nodemcu.readthedocs.io/en/master/
As for what microcontroller to actually learn on, I would say the MSP430 is a very good starting point. It's a fairly mundane 16-bit RISC microcontroller series with very forgiving electrical design requirements, very good documentation, and very good community support. They make a devboard (TI calls them Launchpads) for the MSP430G2553 that's more than enough to get a beginner started. When you need a little more power, you can either opt to invest in learning the ARM ecosystem, or go for something a little more exotic. Just about every manufacturer makes an ARM microcontroller of some sort, so if that's what you're interested in, take your pick and go with it. If you're looking for something else, the Renesas RL78 and RX series provide a lot of functionality if you're willing to deal with how stodgy Renesas can be.
Some important notes:
1.) Don't bother with Arduino. They were a much more compelling product 15 years ago when you had to pay thousands in tools and compiler/environment licensing to get in on in embedded development. Today, what Arduino nets you is a painfully barren environment that abstracts away a lot of what you're trying to learn when you're starting out. Losing out on the debugging, profiling, tracing, disassembly, memory usage statistics, etc. that modern development environments give you will do nothing but stunt your growth, especially if you're used to having all these tools while writing desktop software
2.) Be careful with (or preferably just avoid) starting with embedded Linux; it's pushing the limits of "embedded". You're going to miss out on a lot of important knowledge and insight jumping straight into using an operating system (and a very heavy one at that), and for many applications, it is MASSIVE overkill. When you start, you're not going to need an RTOS. When you need an RTOS, you're going to reach for something more reasonable, like FreeRTOS. If FreeRTOS doesn't cut it, then you can start looking at Linux.
3.) Don't get tangled up with Raspberry Pis; the microprocessor on these is complex and the documentation is severely lacking/nonexistent. RPis are much closer to a desktop computer than they are an embedded system.
If you really want to get it, I would say one of the most useful exercises is implementing your own microcontroller/processor. You can pick up an FPGA devboard for fairly cheap, and there are plenty of textbooks (Harris & Harris' Digital Design and Computer Architecture comes to mind) that will get you through most of the key concepts. Once you've done this, a lot of the gaps in understanding when dealing with a microcontroller will be filled in. This exercise isn't strictly necessary, but I don't know anybody who has done it that wasn't better off for it.
My final note is to buy or "acquire" Horowitz and Hill's The Art of Electronics. Embedded development is inseparable from electrical engineering, so even if you don't read it front to back, there are some sections that you will definitely be visiting if your background isn't in electronics.
I wouldn't say that. Yes the Arduino "libraries" abstract away a lot of the complexities and hinder true understanding. However for a beginner it is a perfect platform simply because of the huge community i.e. tutorials, code and projects. Once they gain confidence from using this, they can move on to "traditional embedded development" by learning to program the underlying AVR directly i.e. use the toolchains installed by the IDE, delete bootloader and upload your program using the ISP interface (see the book; "Make: AVR Programming"). This gives you the best of both worlds using the same development platform. Another advantage is that many other MCU families also provide a "Arduino-like" interface (eg. Energia for MSP430) and thus all the skills learnt on one can be transferred to another.
If you're already writing software, you're not going to be struggling with having to learn programming. Translated to Arduino, this is great for engineers who don't write software and just need to get simple shit done fast, but for those with a background in software, it feels equal parts mundane (I called analogRead and... got an ADC value, just as expected) and magic (what did analogRead actually do?). Given, you can go look at the source for these libraries, but a lot of them make very generous use of the preprocessor for the sake of supporting multiple products in one codebase, and it's often not pleasant to read. Working with an MSP430 (or basically any architecture if you're using more capable tooling, like you mentioned with AVR) has a certain clarity to it that the Arduino ecosystem just doesn't seem to capture.
I would make the same argument for AVR and the "real deal" tooling as I do the MSP430; why bother with Arduino when you're probably coming in with decent programming skills?
Pure Software programming skills are NOT enough when it comes to embedded programming. You need to know the logical interface to the HW and the EE/Electronics behind the HW itself. This is a huge challenge for people who have only worked with applications software over layers of abstraction. This is where the Arduino shines; hide the overwhelming HW complexities and provide a simple api for software guys to get their job done. This allows them to slowly gain HW knowledge and transition to "traditional embedded programming" as needed. Also, many experienced embedded developers are using the Arduino as a rapid prototyping platform to implement an idea quickly and get clarity on the project before implementation on the actual target using traditional means. Learners can do both on the same Arduino platform.
So here is my recipe for somebody wanting to learn Embedded Development;
1) Get a Arduino Uno, a couple of extra ATmega328Ps, a AVR programmer and a electronic components toolkit.
2) Get a book on Arduino programming and AVR programming. I can recommend "Exploring Arduino" and "Make: AVR Programming". You also need a book on Electronics and "Practical Electronics for Inventors" is a pretty good one.
3) Install the Arduino IDE and go through some blinky tutorials. Do some projects from "Exploring Arduino".
4) Now move on to direct AVR programming. The Arduino IDE has already installed the required toolchains. Setup a Makefile environment using them following instructions in "Make: AVR programming". Do some blinky and other projects from this book. This gives a command-line approach to AVR programming.
5) Next repeat the above using a proper vendor supplied IDE eg. Atmel Studio for AVRs. These IDEs are pretty complex but quite powerful and used extensively in the industry. Go through some tutorials and redo the blinky and other projects using the IDE.
6) Get some test equipment tools to look into the inner workings of the system. I recommend the multi-functional "Analog Discovery 2" which has lots of learning tutorials.
Congratulations; you are now a bare-metal "Embedded Developer"!
To enter the "big boys league", move onto ARM Cortex boards.
Finally you get to "Embedded Linux" and become a "Master Super-Duper Embedded Developer" :-)
I can't tell you if this is "the way", but I can tell you how I started. I flipped a coin to decide between Altera and Xilinx and started with a Terasic DE2 board (an Altera Cyclone II devboard) that I borrowed from my university. I don't recommend using this board or something like it (it has actually been superseded by a nearly identical board with a Cyclone IV in place of the dated Cyclone II); the extra peripherals are a headache more than anything, and the simple breakout pins on the Terasic DE0-Nano are greatly appreciated. As for the environment, you can go and download Quartus from Altera basically no-questions-asked.
After pissing with the board for a bit, I decided to pick up a book. Rapid Prototyping of Digital Systems by Hamblen, Hall, and Furman is good, if not a bit out of date. I had this book to thumb through instead of read front-to-back. It is written for older versions of Altera's Quartus software, but with a little bit of exploring the UI I was able to find just about everything I needed. It makes a decent quick reference for Verilog and VHDL syntax, has quite a bit of info on interfacing various things to an FPGA (think PS/2 mouse, VGA, etc.), and a couple chapters on microcontrollers and microprocessors.
An important bit to know is that that a lot of the usage of an FPGA (at least in the way I use them) happens in two phases; the actual logical design, which you'll do on your computer via simulation, and the actual usage of that design on the FPGA. The logical design happens largely in ModelSim (with Quartus only being used to generate libraries at this stage), or some other Verilog/VHDL simulation tool. Altera ships ModelSim free-of-charge with Quartus. It is your run-of-the-mill Tk-based clunker of an EDA tool, but it works and I haven't had it crash on me yet, so I can't really complain, even if I have some gripes with it. This is where most of the work/magic happens, at least for a beginner; you write your logic in your editor of choice, write testbenches, and simulate those testbenches in ModelSim. Having read the Harris and Harris book mentioned in my initial post in the past, I took a quick look at a processor called "Ahmes" on GitHub, and just had a go at it. After getting a primitive processor working/executing instructions, adding some peripherals like some timers is where things started to come full circle, and I started realizing both the power of the FPGA, and why things are the way they are on a microcontroller/processor.
The bit where you actually put it on the FPGA hardware is largely uneventful, or at least it was for me. I didn't have multiple clock domains or anything like that, so I didn't suffer from any timing issues, and basically had the good fortune of just mapping pins and letting it rip. In theory, actually translating the design to the chip doesn't do much, but in practice, a design that exists only on your computer isn't terribly useful. Actually using the hardware adds that "visceral feeling" and lets you play with what you've spent so much time doing, along with getting you familiar with the process if/when the day comes that you actually need to do it. You also get to enjoy/experience the power of bolting on arbitrary hardware to your jalopy processor for the sake of VGA output, GPIO, timers, SPI communication, etc.
I wouldn't consider myself terribly talented or knowledgeable, so if you just throw enough time at it, you can probably end up having just as much fun as I did.
What alternatives are there then?
I like the ESP boards from Wemos. The US made ones from Sparkfun and Adafruit are also really good. The advantage of the Wemos ones (and the many counterfeits you'll see on sites like Aliexpress) is that they're so cheap you don't even have to feel bad if you fry one.
I found a decent port of uCLinux to the Cortex-M3 once, but the host core was 120 MHz and it was pretty much a science experiment and not much more.
Have you checked out some of the alt pi boards like Orange Pi or Onion Omega2Plus?
1. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1598272670/chip-the-wor...
Why are you arguing about having standard peripherals? It doesn't let people learn about I/O.
I was in highschool and we were given given embedded hardware and were able to program it using assembly and uploading a program into it.
If you give students some very minimal embedded hardware with wifi and some terminal, they should be able to learn using that. Let them install things, maybe setup a 2D interface...
The RPi educational value is only enabled by I/O pins. I'm not sure that's really worthwhile.
The RPi is interesting because it's a powerful but cheap computer. I just wish there was much cheaper hardware to show people you can also do things with smaller stuff.