In college, I thought programming was boring and didn't really see why its important in elecrtrical engineering. After taking a BASIC programming class, I saw how powerful software could play in enhancing embedded systems. Programming languages like C and C++ make the impossibility of creating smaller and smarter electronic devices possible. I tell my students the ability to make a dumb device smart using C and C++ programming languages makes them the ultimate problem solver developing tools and products that can change the world.
In college I worked in the Engineering Dept while in the EE program. One of my first jobs was to throw away piles of punch cards. How symbolic. Fortran was the language in our required introduction to programming. no punch cards, but running jobs using the VI editor on Hazeltine terminals connected to a Digital mainframe in the CS dep't. The experience was more valuable than any specific knowledge. Later came Pascal. By the time C was offered, I was finishing my studies and had no elective slots.
I learned ASM in a microprocessor class on Motorola chips. I agree, learning ASM is so valuable. When you look at the output listing from your compiler, wouldn't you want to have some idea what the compiler generated (particularly when the compiled code is not performing some low-level task as you expected)?
I learned C in self-study while working. C seems the perfect fit for low-end MCUs. C is also a good fit with the procedural code we tend to develop for embedded systems.
Now looking at C++, I see that over the years I've solved some problems using OO-like approaches without having any formal understanding of C++. But C was still powerful enough to allow me to create those things.
Daniyal_Ali: I agree with your comments about "working in the background." And I would encourage those that are trying to master these languages to do so. However, today's tools make that (unfortunately) unnecessary. It reminds me of the days when Windows was first popularized. Those of us who knew our way around DOS seemed to have a distinct advantage.
I don't think that any transition in software is hassle free, however. (maybe I could generalize and say that nothing is hassle free about software - the devil IS in the details)
It seems to me like C++ may be a bit too much for the resources available in lower end processors. Many of the compelling features of C++ might be pretty resource heavy for microcontrollers. I think C is a great choice for microcontrollers. It gets you a step above Assembler, but is still lean enough to be feasible.
I'm interested in seeing what C++ features will be supported in the microcontroller implementations, and what features won't, and whether low end controllers will be supported at all.
You are right, the transition from C to C++ is "hassle free" but if one really wants to learn how things work in the background, he must learn the basic assembly languages. Nowadays students are quite comfortable using C and C++ as they are very user friendly, but at the same time they are missing out on how things work at the background of their code. To get a complete hold of programming, one must know what lies in the details.
I, too, started out with punch cards. I had a couple of rather early classes in finite element analysis. I'd take a stack of my punch cards to the guys who ran the computer room, come back the next day, and pick up my results on the old 11" x 17" perforated, folded printout paper. If I made a slight error, I couldn't get my corrected results until the next day. You had to hope you didn't have a dozen errors in your punch cards because that could represent 12 days of new printouts. Gee, when I describe it that way,it all sounds so old.
Rich, I started out with punch cards and FORTRAN. Actually, I was studying physics and was a paid student programmer. We had terminals in the Physics building, so I never really had to submit card decks. The fist terminals were printing terminals with paper tape. We then went to fancier printing terminals and then we went to CRTs. It was great. Then I went to work at NASA and was back to submitting cards. It was a letdown.
In many engineering workplaces, there’s a generational conflict between recent engineering graduates and older, more experienced engineers. However, a recent study published in the psychology journal Cognition suggests that both may have something to learn from another group: 4 year olds.
Conventional wisdom holds that MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford are three of the country’s best undergraduate engineering schools. Unfortunately, when conventional wisdom visits the topic of best engineering schools, it too often leaves out some of the most distinguished programs that don’t happen to offer PhD-level degrees.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.