EE rant...

Joerg wrote:
On 1/2/23 5:57 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 11:00:52 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 1/1/23 11:08 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 01 Jan 2023 20:04:49 -0800) it happened
John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
mrl4rhhtkup3sn9t4an65r9buogjtk9er1@4ax.com>:


https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/18/electrical_engineers_extinction/?td=rt-9cp



 >>>> I\'ve been thinking for some time now that EE schools don\'t
turn out
people who like electricity, but maker culture might.


It\'s almost always been that way. Except in the last century it
was ham radio. I learned way more useful stuff that way that in
years at the university.

I think that electrical instincts should be acquired young. Then the
 college courses add the theory. That\'s why the lego/maker/Raspberry
Pi thing is interesting.


I agree.  As a young teenage hobbyist with little guidance, I went
through about four years of frustration at not being able to design my
own circuits.  I\'d salvaged all these tubes and things from a couple of
old TVs that my folks were chucking out, but didn\'t really know how they
worked.  (Transistors were too expensive, and IC prices were just moving
down from the stratosphere.)

That bottled-up frustration gave me a fire in the belly to figure it all
out, which eventually I mostly did.  (Never got round to using anything
from that Motorola MNOS nonvolatile memory book they sent me, though.)


I started building my own stuff very early on. PRoblem was, I took what
I had learned in physics class literally. Well, initially. Like that
capacitors are ideal components. Until one fine day the fluorescent
lights in my room dimmed and I new they weren\'t dimmable. What the heck?
Huh? ... *POP* .. WHOOOSH  ... hisssss

That was one of the electrolytics that had turned itself into a missile
and whizzed by inches from my left eye. Whew! I learned about ESR the
hard way. It took some plaster out of the ceiling and after return to
earth melted an ugly splotch into the carpet.


At IBM, I was occasionally asked to interview candidates, and one of
the things I always asked them was whether they had any hobby
background in electronics or physical science. ...


Bingo! Exactly what I did.


                         ... Almost all the best designers I know
started out as hobbyists, which ISTM says more about the fire in the
belly than the expertise so acquired.

Now if you\'d just get off your duff and write that \"Electronics From
Scratch\" book you used to talk about, we might have a few more. :)

In the EE school I was in it was known that only \'hobbyists\' would
pass the final exams. The dropout in the first year was very very
very high.


At my university the drop-out rate (start to degree) was at times 83%.

Too many kids selected an EE degree based on some high school
counselor\'s advice, or dreams of a tidy income. Too late.

I dunno.  Washing out of a hard program isn\'t the worst thing that can
happen to a young person.  It\'s not nearly as bad as hanging on by the
skin of your teeth and then failing over a decade or so in the industry.

The old saying, \"C\'s get degrees\" has caused a lot of misery of that
sort.


I had pretty bad grades because I worked a lot on the side, did
\"pre-degree consulting\" and stuff like that. Bad grades are ok.

In an honest system, bad grades mean that the student either didn\'t do
the work, or was unable or unwilling to do it well. There can be lots
of reasons for that, such as being unavoidably too busy, but that\'s not
the usual case.

The result is wasted time and money, and usually a skill set that\'s full
of holes and harder to build on later. It sounds like you were sort of
making up your own enrichment curriculum as you went on, which is a bit
different, of course.

I knew some very smart folks whose grades were poor, but they were
mostly unmotivated or undisciplined. One guy (a math genius) was in my
grad school study group for awhile, but was way too handsome for his own
good--he spent his time playing soccer and chasing women, and tried to
skate by on talent as he\'d always done. Eventually it stopped working.
If you go far enough, it always does.

That\'s the real benefit of weed-out courses--not that many people flunk,
but that the ones who succeed have to learn to learn mental discipline
in the process. That\'ll stand you in good stead for a lifetime.
(Flunking isn\'t the worst thing that can happen to you. I got fired from
my first job, which was very beneficial overall.)

Students sometimes ask me for advice, and I always tell them three
things: first, in every field, make sure you have the fundamentals down
cold; second, concentrate your course work on things that are hard to
pick up on your own, especially math; and third, join a research group
where you can do a lot of stuff on your own. (The ideal is to have an
interesting smallish project, where you have to do everything, and a
bunch of smart and supportive colleagues.)

That\'s the most direct path to wizardhood that I know about.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
 
Joerg wrote:
On 1/2/23 5:57 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 11:00:52 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 1/1/23 11:08 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 01 Jan 2023 20:04:49 -0800) it happened
John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
mrl4rhhtkup3sn9t4an65r9buogjtk9er1@4ax.com>:


https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/18/electrical_engineers_extinction/?td=rt-9cp



 >>>> I\'ve been thinking for some time now that EE schools don\'t
turn out
people who like electricity, but maker culture might.


It\'s almost always been that way. Except in the last century it
was ham radio. I learned way more useful stuff that way that in
years at the university.

I think that electrical instincts should be acquired young. Then the
 college courses add the theory. That\'s why the lego/maker/Raspberry
Pi thing is interesting.


I agree.  As a young teenage hobbyist with little guidance, I went
through about four years of frustration at not being able to design my
own circuits.  I\'d salvaged all these tubes and things from a couple of
old TVs that my folks were chucking out, but didn\'t really know how they
worked.  (Transistors were too expensive, and IC prices were just moving
down from the stratosphere.)

That bottled-up frustration gave me a fire in the belly to figure it all
out, which eventually I mostly did.  (Never got round to using anything
from that Motorola MNOS nonvolatile memory book they sent me, though.)


I started building my own stuff very early on. PRoblem was, I took what
I had learned in physics class literally. Well, initially. Like that
capacitors are ideal components. Until one fine day the fluorescent
lights in my room dimmed and I new they weren\'t dimmable. What the heck?
Huh? ... *POP* .. WHOOOSH  ... hisssss

That was one of the electrolytics that had turned itself into a missile
and whizzed by inches from my left eye. Whew! I learned about ESR the
hard way. It took some plaster out of the ceiling and after return to
earth melted an ugly splotch into the carpet.


At IBM, I was occasionally asked to interview candidates, and one of
the things I always asked them was whether they had any hobby
background in electronics or physical science. ...


Bingo! Exactly what I did.


                         ... Almost all the best designers I know
started out as hobbyists, which ISTM says more about the fire in the
belly than the expertise so acquired.

Now if you\'d just get off your duff and write that \"Electronics From
Scratch\" book you used to talk about, we might have a few more. :)

In the EE school I was in it was known that only \'hobbyists\' would
pass the final exams. The dropout in the first year was very very
very high.


At my university the drop-out rate (start to degree) was at times 83%.

Too many kids selected an EE degree based on some high school
counselor\'s advice, or dreams of a tidy income. Too late.

I dunno.  Washing out of a hard program isn\'t the worst thing that can
happen to a young person.  It\'s not nearly as bad as hanging on by the
skin of your teeth and then failing over a decade or so in the industry.

The old saying, \"C\'s get degrees\" has caused a lot of misery of that
sort.


I had pretty bad grades because I worked a lot on the side, did
\"pre-degree consulting\" and stuff like that. Bad grades are ok.

In an honest system, bad grades mean that the student either didn\'t do
the work, or was unable or unwilling to do it well. There can be lots
of reasons for that, such as being unavoidably too busy, but that\'s not
the usual case.

The result is wasted time and money, and usually a skill set that\'s full
of holes and harder to build on later. It sounds like you were sort of
making up your own enrichment curriculum as you went on, which is a bit
different, of course.

I knew some very smart folks whose grades were poor, but they were
mostly unmotivated or undisciplined. One guy (a math genius) was in my
grad school study group for awhile, but was way too handsome for his own
good--he spent his time playing soccer and chasing women, and tried to
skate by on talent as he\'d always done. Eventually it stopped working.
If you go far enough, it always does.

That\'s the real benefit of weed-out courses--not that many people flunk,
but that the ones who succeed have to learn to learn mental discipline
in the process. That\'ll stand you in good stead for a lifetime.
(Flunking isn\'t the worst thing that can happen to you. I got fired from
my first job, which was very beneficial overall.)

Students sometimes ask me for advice, and I always tell them three
things: first, in every field, make sure you have the fundamentals down
cold; second, concentrate your course work on things that are hard to
pick up on your own, especially math; and third, join a research group
where you can do a lot of stuff on your own. (The ideal is to have an
interesting smallish project, where you have to do everything, and a
bunch of smart and supportive colleagues.)

That\'s the most direct path to wizardhood that I know about.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
 
tirsdag den 3. januar 2023 kl. 18.22.28 UTC+1 skrev Don Y:
On 1/3/2023 9:42 AM, bitrex wrote:
And then people complain the US doesn\'t make electronics anymore. Challenging
programs with a high washout rate AND it doesn\'t pay too good? Wow hard to
believe everyone isn\'t jumping on that one, lol
Nowadays, even \"makers\" don\'t *make* electronics. They just buy
modules and write some code. Modern packages are just too tedious
for hobbyists; you want successes to encourage your efforts, not
failures.

modern packages are not really an issue when places like JLCPCB
does multilayer pcbs and assembly for the price of a cup of coffee
 
tirsdag den 3. januar 2023 kl. 18.22.28 UTC+1 skrev Don Y:
On 1/3/2023 9:42 AM, bitrex wrote:
And then people complain the US doesn\'t make electronics anymore. Challenging
programs with a high washout rate AND it doesn\'t pay too good? Wow hard to
believe everyone isn\'t jumping on that one, lol
Nowadays, even \"makers\" don\'t *make* electronics. They just buy
modules and write some code. Modern packages are just too tedious
for hobbyists; you want successes to encourage your efforts, not
failures.

modern packages are not really an issue when places like JLCPCB
does multilayer pcbs and assembly for the price of a cup of coffee
 
tirsdag den 3. januar 2023 kl. 18.22.28 UTC+1 skrev Don Y:
On 1/3/2023 9:42 AM, bitrex wrote:
And then people complain the US doesn\'t make electronics anymore. Challenging
programs with a high washout rate AND it doesn\'t pay too good? Wow hard to
believe everyone isn\'t jumping on that one, lol
Nowadays, even \"makers\" don\'t *make* electronics. They just buy
modules and write some code. Modern packages are just too tedious
for hobbyists; you want successes to encourage your efforts, not
failures.

modern packages are not really an issue when places like JLCPCB
does multilayer pcbs and assembly for the price of a cup of coffee
 
On a sunny day (Tue, 10 Jan 2023 14:57:00 -0800) it happened Joerg
<news@analogconsultants.com> wrote in <k268puFi1h6U1@mid.individual.net>:

Number two: The same guy said that grounded gate circuits in RF stages
make no sense at all. Huh? I did one of those during my very first job
assignment when the ink on my degree was barely dry. And lots before as
a hobbyist.

Sure, used those in some projects.



Number three: Another professor said that we only need to learn all this
transistor-level stuff for the exam. Once we graduated this would all be
obsoleted by integrated circuits. That one took the cake. Still, it
seemed I was the only one who didn\'t believe such nonsense. However, it
provided me with the epiphany \"Ha! This is my niche!\". And that\'s what
it became. Never looked back.

This was at a European ivy league place which made it even more
disappointing.

In my school, a teacher (old one) was teaching us about transistors.
Transistors most of us were experimenting with at home..
So one guy asked;
\'Sir what exactly is a complementary pair?\'
Teacher got furious, thought it was a sex joke, and asked the guy to leave..
It took the whole class (most of use knew the answer) to convince the
teacher that that was a legitimate question.
Early sixties that was...
I think that teacher never had a transistor in his hands,, mostly lived in the tube ages.
Lucky we also had an other teacher who knew what he was doing..
 
On a sunny day (Tue, 10 Jan 2023 14:57:00 -0800) it happened Joerg
<news@analogconsultants.com> wrote in <k268puFi1h6U1@mid.individual.net>:

Number two: The same guy said that grounded gate circuits in RF stages
make no sense at all. Huh? I did one of those during my very first job
assignment when the ink on my degree was barely dry. And lots before as
a hobbyist.

Sure, used those in some projects.



Number three: Another professor said that we only need to learn all this
transistor-level stuff for the exam. Once we graduated this would all be
obsoleted by integrated circuits. That one took the cake. Still, it
seemed I was the only one who didn\'t believe such nonsense. However, it
provided me with the epiphany \"Ha! This is my niche!\". And that\'s what
it became. Never looked back.

This was at a European ivy league place which made it even more
disappointing.

In my school, a teacher (old one) was teaching us about transistors.
Transistors most of us were experimenting with at home..
So one guy asked;
\'Sir what exactly is a complementary pair?\'
Teacher got furious, thought it was a sex joke, and asked the guy to leave..
It took the whole class (most of use knew the answer) to convince the
teacher that that was a legitimate question.
Early sixties that was...
I think that teacher never had a transistor in his hands,, mostly lived in the tube ages.
Lucky we also had an other teacher who knew what he was doing..
 
On a sunny day (Tue, 10 Jan 2023 14:57:00 -0800) it happened Joerg
<news@analogconsultants.com> wrote in <k268puFi1h6U1@mid.individual.net>:

Number two: The same guy said that grounded gate circuits in RF stages
make no sense at all. Huh? I did one of those during my very first job
assignment when the ink on my degree was barely dry. And lots before as
a hobbyist.

Sure, used those in some projects.



Number three: Another professor said that we only need to learn all this
transistor-level stuff for the exam. Once we graduated this would all be
obsoleted by integrated circuits. That one took the cake. Still, it
seemed I was the only one who didn\'t believe such nonsense. However, it
provided me with the epiphany \"Ha! This is my niche!\". And that\'s what
it became. Never looked back.

This was at a European ivy league place which made it even more
disappointing.

In my school, a teacher (old one) was teaching us about transistors.
Transistors most of us were experimenting with at home..
So one guy asked;
\'Sir what exactly is a complementary pair?\'
Teacher got furious, thought it was a sex joke, and asked the guy to leave..
It took the whole class (most of use knew the answer) to convince the
teacher that that was a legitimate question.
Early sixties that was...
I think that teacher never had a transistor in his hands,, mostly lived in the tube ages.
Lucky we also had an other teacher who knew what he was doing..
 
On a sunny day (Wed, 4 Jan 2023 08:39:59 -0500) it happened Phil Hops wrote

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 4 Jan 2023 09:20:44 +0000) it happened Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <tp3gdi$1ra1$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

On 02/01/2023 19:21, Jan Panteltje wrote:
My website hosting company \"Godaddy.com\" moved to Microsoft for my email.
What a lot of crap that is!! The old pop-email no longer works,
pop-email took a second here for incoming to add to my email system that goes back to 1998.

Are you sure about that?
Is it a very recent thing (as in failed 27/12/22 by any chance?)


POP worked fine on MS Office 365/Outlook with the server settings here:

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/pop-imap-and-smtp-settings-8361e398-8af4-4e97-b147-6c6c4ac95353

interesting
but godddy has done more things wrong, this was the limit
1) they would re-encode my JPG pictures so it would take less space on their server
but then people could not read my circuit diagrams..

(Talk about leading with your chin!)

Were you trying to commi-nukate something?
 
On a sunny day (Wed, 4 Jan 2023 08:39:59 -0500) it happened Phil Hops wrote

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 4 Jan 2023 09:20:44 +0000) it happened Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <tp3gdi$1ra1$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

On 02/01/2023 19:21, Jan Panteltje wrote:
My website hosting company \"Godaddy.com\" moved to Microsoft for my email.
What a lot of crap that is!! The old pop-email no longer works,
pop-email took a second here for incoming to add to my email system that goes back to 1998.

Are you sure about that?
Is it a very recent thing (as in failed 27/12/22 by any chance?)


POP worked fine on MS Office 365/Outlook with the server settings here:

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/pop-imap-and-smtp-settings-8361e398-8af4-4e97-b147-6c6c4ac95353

interesting
but godddy has done more things wrong, this was the limit
1) they would re-encode my JPG pictures so it would take less space on their server
but then people could not read my circuit diagrams..

(Talk about leading with your chin!)

Were you trying to commi-nukate something?
 
On a sunny day (Wed, 4 Jan 2023 08:39:59 -0500) it happened Phil Hops wrote

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 4 Jan 2023 09:20:44 +0000) it happened Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <tp3gdi$1ra1$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

On 02/01/2023 19:21, Jan Panteltje wrote:
My website hosting company \"Godaddy.com\" moved to Microsoft for my email.
What a lot of crap that is!! The old pop-email no longer works,
pop-email took a second here for incoming to add to my email system that goes back to 1998.

Are you sure about that?
Is it a very recent thing (as in failed 27/12/22 by any chance?)


POP worked fine on MS Office 365/Outlook with the server settings here:

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/pop-imap-and-smtp-settings-8361e398-8af4-4e97-b147-6c6c4ac95353

interesting
but godddy has done more things wrong, this was the limit
1) they would re-encode my JPG pictures so it would take less space on their server
but then people could not read my circuit diagrams..

(Talk about leading with your chin!)

Were you trying to commi-nukate something?
 
On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 14:06:32 +0000, Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/01/2023 17:33, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 15:52:21 -0000 (UTC), \"Don\" <g@crcomp.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

snip

The Outlook webmail is sort of a good concept, but the actual product
is terrible, slow and ugly and clumsy and buggy. Why can\'t Microsoft
code?

Elsewhere John Larkin wrote:

Coding is an easily acquited skill. It requires no math, no science,
little discipline, and is a tightly bound, artificial abstraction
layer with little visibility up or down.

Coding is easily acquitted because it\'s so extremely difficult to write
easily understood, robust software. See your first comment in this
followup.
But, your typo probably pertains to \"easily acquired.\" Many people
make the same mistake when they to try to convince themselves software
development is easy. Again, see your first comment in this followup.
Although it\'s easy to ride a bicycle with training wheels, street
motocross is in a league of its own. Along with exceptional software
development.

Danke,

Software is usually flame tested. Type fast and see if it will
compile. Patch until it does.

I have to agree to some extent. I have seen C coders who use the random
application of casts until their dodgy code gets past the compiler.

At least now the latest generation of compilers will spot a decent
fraction of uninitialised variables and constructs that probably do
things other than what the author intended.

if (x=0) y=10; // sets x to 0 assignment to y is unreachable

for example. Or the infamous Fortran do loop that killed a space probe.

DO 100 I=1.3 where the intention was to loop 3x \".\" instead of \",\"

What it actually did was set variable DO100I equal to 1.3

That\'s funny, clearly code that somebody wrote and nobody read. One
difference between software and hardware is that we brutally review
hardware designs, and PCBs usually work first try. We also simulate or
breadboard and test any bits that we don\'t fully understand.

In the days of assembly coding and clumsy editing and printed
listings, we *read* our code before we ran it. And commented heavily.
That was the old-fashioned concept of engineering code like we
engineer hardware. Iteration speed now lets us code faster and find
bugs faster, but it doesn\'t encourage being careful. Good enough, I
guess.





Then actually run it and see what happens. In most modern cases, you
can push it out to users overnight, and then wait for complaints about
bugs. Maybe fix the worst ones.

It depends on the scale of the software.
The bigger it is the longer the development cycle.

FPGA design is more difficult than coding in c++ or javascript or
whatever, so people are a little more careful.

A minor mistake on a PC board can with luck be hacked, but anything
serious needs a board spin that can cost 10s of kilobucks and a month
if really rushed.

Software bugs that get out into the wild can also have enormous costs to
fix. The sooner they are found the cheaper they are to fix. Better still
to use languages that can catch the most common human errors.

I do largely agree that the internet has made it even more common to
ship defective code knowing that it can be patched remotely at little
cost to the supplier (but sometimes considerable pain to the end user).

The easier it is to change something, the sloppier the work will be.

That was always true. Software does have more than it\'s fair share of
the ship it and be damned culture but it is senior management wanting to
hit delivery targets and get their quadratic sales bonus that is the
root cause. The engineers are more cautious about shipping duff code.

I am amused by flux.ai, an attempt to apply software disciplines
(irony alert) to electronic hardware design. They are hiring now,
three \"full stack\" programmer types and one hardware summer intern.

FWIW My irony meter has also pegged past the end stop.

The schematic on their home page is hilarious. Where can I buy a
2N2000? I\'ve told them about the blunders but I suspect they had some
outsider fake the page and they can\'t fix it. Tilting schematic! Mine
can tilt, at least when they are still on paper.

I was at one time involved in a project to bring hardware engineering
disciplines into software development. It made some difference but not
long after I left the project was abandoned. The software repository of
known working algorithms degraded with time and the joke was s/re/su/.

Software tends to have a git-hubby collaborative team model, where
everybody edits and nobody is responsible.


The idea was to not have every factory reinventing much the same wheels.

Software development even today is a bit like medieval cathedral
building before they fully understood foundations and materials stress.
If it is still standing 5 years after completion then it was a good \'un.

The odd one like Durham and Ely were sufficiently over engineered or
quickly adjusted to avoid falling into the river or down. Or the 13th C
church in Chesterfield with a crooked spire that is still standing.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/chesterfields-crooked-spire

Like the leaning tower of Pisa it is on borrowed time.

Architects are designing spiral buildings now. Chesterfields was ahead
of its time.
 
On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 14:06:32 +0000, Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/01/2023 17:33, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 15:52:21 -0000 (UTC), \"Don\" <g@crcomp.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

snip

The Outlook webmail is sort of a good concept, but the actual product
is terrible, slow and ugly and clumsy and buggy. Why can\'t Microsoft
code?

Elsewhere John Larkin wrote:

Coding is an easily acquited skill. It requires no math, no science,
little discipline, and is a tightly bound, artificial abstraction
layer with little visibility up or down.

Coding is easily acquitted because it\'s so extremely difficult to write
easily understood, robust software. See your first comment in this
followup.
But, your typo probably pertains to \"easily acquired.\" Many people
make the same mistake when they to try to convince themselves software
development is easy. Again, see your first comment in this followup.
Although it\'s easy to ride a bicycle with training wheels, street
motocross is in a league of its own. Along with exceptional software
development.

Danke,

Software is usually flame tested. Type fast and see if it will
compile. Patch until it does.

I have to agree to some extent. I have seen C coders who use the random
application of casts until their dodgy code gets past the compiler.

At least now the latest generation of compilers will spot a decent
fraction of uninitialised variables and constructs that probably do
things other than what the author intended.

if (x=0) y=10; // sets x to 0 assignment to y is unreachable

for example. Or the infamous Fortran do loop that killed a space probe.

DO 100 I=1.3 where the intention was to loop 3x \".\" instead of \",\"

What it actually did was set variable DO100I equal to 1.3

That\'s funny, clearly code that somebody wrote and nobody read. One
difference between software and hardware is that we brutally review
hardware designs, and PCBs usually work first try. We also simulate or
breadboard and test any bits that we don\'t fully understand.

In the days of assembly coding and clumsy editing and printed
listings, we *read* our code before we ran it. And commented heavily.
That was the old-fashioned concept of engineering code like we
engineer hardware. Iteration speed now lets us code faster and find
bugs faster, but it doesn\'t encourage being careful. Good enough, I
guess.





Then actually run it and see what happens. In most modern cases, you
can push it out to users overnight, and then wait for complaints about
bugs. Maybe fix the worst ones.

It depends on the scale of the software.
The bigger it is the longer the development cycle.

FPGA design is more difficult than coding in c++ or javascript or
whatever, so people are a little more careful.

A minor mistake on a PC board can with luck be hacked, but anything
serious needs a board spin that can cost 10s of kilobucks and a month
if really rushed.

Software bugs that get out into the wild can also have enormous costs to
fix. The sooner they are found the cheaper they are to fix. Better still
to use languages that can catch the most common human errors.

I do largely agree that the internet has made it even more common to
ship defective code knowing that it can be patched remotely at little
cost to the supplier (but sometimes considerable pain to the end user).

The easier it is to change something, the sloppier the work will be.

That was always true. Software does have more than it\'s fair share of
the ship it and be damned culture but it is senior management wanting to
hit delivery targets and get their quadratic sales bonus that is the
root cause. The engineers are more cautious about shipping duff code.

I am amused by flux.ai, an attempt to apply software disciplines
(irony alert) to electronic hardware design. They are hiring now,
three \"full stack\" programmer types and one hardware summer intern.

FWIW My irony meter has also pegged past the end stop.

The schematic on their home page is hilarious. Where can I buy a
2N2000? I\'ve told them about the blunders but I suspect they had some
outsider fake the page and they can\'t fix it. Tilting schematic! Mine
can tilt, at least when they are still on paper.

I was at one time involved in a project to bring hardware engineering
disciplines into software development. It made some difference but not
long after I left the project was abandoned. The software repository of
known working algorithms degraded with time and the joke was s/re/su/.

Software tends to have a git-hubby collaborative team model, where
everybody edits and nobody is responsible.


The idea was to not have every factory reinventing much the same wheels.

Software development even today is a bit like medieval cathedral
building before they fully understood foundations and materials stress.
If it is still standing 5 years after completion then it was a good \'un.

The odd one like Durham and Ely were sufficiently over engineered or
quickly adjusted to avoid falling into the river or down. Or the 13th C
church in Chesterfield with a crooked spire that is still standing.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/chesterfields-crooked-spire

Like the leaning tower of Pisa it is on borrowed time.

Architects are designing spiral buildings now. Chesterfields was ahead
of its time.
 
On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 14:06:32 +0000, Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/01/2023 17:33, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 15:52:21 -0000 (UTC), \"Don\" <g@crcomp.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

snip

The Outlook webmail is sort of a good concept, but the actual product
is terrible, slow and ugly and clumsy and buggy. Why can\'t Microsoft
code?

Elsewhere John Larkin wrote:

Coding is an easily acquited skill. It requires no math, no science,
little discipline, and is a tightly bound, artificial abstraction
layer with little visibility up or down.

Coding is easily acquitted because it\'s so extremely difficult to write
easily understood, robust software. See your first comment in this
followup.
But, your typo probably pertains to \"easily acquired.\" Many people
make the same mistake when they to try to convince themselves software
development is easy. Again, see your first comment in this followup.
Although it\'s easy to ride a bicycle with training wheels, street
motocross is in a league of its own. Along with exceptional software
development.

Danke,

Software is usually flame tested. Type fast and see if it will
compile. Patch until it does.

I have to agree to some extent. I have seen C coders who use the random
application of casts until their dodgy code gets past the compiler.

At least now the latest generation of compilers will spot a decent
fraction of uninitialised variables and constructs that probably do
things other than what the author intended.

if (x=0) y=10; // sets x to 0 assignment to y is unreachable

for example. Or the infamous Fortran do loop that killed a space probe.

DO 100 I=1.3 where the intention was to loop 3x \".\" instead of \",\"

What it actually did was set variable DO100I equal to 1.3

That\'s funny, clearly code that somebody wrote and nobody read. One
difference between software and hardware is that we brutally review
hardware designs, and PCBs usually work first try. We also simulate or
breadboard and test any bits that we don\'t fully understand.

In the days of assembly coding and clumsy editing and printed
listings, we *read* our code before we ran it. And commented heavily.
That was the old-fashioned concept of engineering code like we
engineer hardware. Iteration speed now lets us code faster and find
bugs faster, but it doesn\'t encourage being careful. Good enough, I
guess.





Then actually run it and see what happens. In most modern cases, you
can push it out to users overnight, and then wait for complaints about
bugs. Maybe fix the worst ones.

It depends on the scale of the software.
The bigger it is the longer the development cycle.

FPGA design is more difficult than coding in c++ or javascript or
whatever, so people are a little more careful.

A minor mistake on a PC board can with luck be hacked, but anything
serious needs a board spin that can cost 10s of kilobucks and a month
if really rushed.

Software bugs that get out into the wild can also have enormous costs to
fix. The sooner they are found the cheaper they are to fix. Better still
to use languages that can catch the most common human errors.

I do largely agree that the internet has made it even more common to
ship defective code knowing that it can be patched remotely at little
cost to the supplier (but sometimes considerable pain to the end user).

The easier it is to change something, the sloppier the work will be.

That was always true. Software does have more than it\'s fair share of
the ship it and be damned culture but it is senior management wanting to
hit delivery targets and get their quadratic sales bonus that is the
root cause. The engineers are more cautious about shipping duff code.

I am amused by flux.ai, an attempt to apply software disciplines
(irony alert) to electronic hardware design. They are hiring now,
three \"full stack\" programmer types and one hardware summer intern.

FWIW My irony meter has also pegged past the end stop.

The schematic on their home page is hilarious. Where can I buy a
2N2000? I\'ve told them about the blunders but I suspect they had some
outsider fake the page and they can\'t fix it. Tilting schematic! Mine
can tilt, at least when they are still on paper.

I was at one time involved in a project to bring hardware engineering
disciplines into software development. It made some difference but not
long after I left the project was abandoned. The software repository of
known working algorithms degraded with time and the joke was s/re/su/.

Software tends to have a git-hubby collaborative team model, where
everybody edits and nobody is responsible.


The idea was to not have every factory reinventing much the same wheels.

Software development even today is a bit like medieval cathedral
building before they fully understood foundations and materials stress.
If it is still standing 5 years after completion then it was a good \'un.

The odd one like Durham and Ely were sufficiently over engineered or
quickly adjusted to avoid falling into the river or down. Or the 13th C
church in Chesterfield with a crooked spire that is still standing.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/chesterfields-crooked-spire

Like the leaning tower of Pisa it is on borrowed time.

Architects are designing spiral buildings now. Chesterfields was ahead
of its time.
 
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 3:41:13 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 8:26:01 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 5:55:48 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 12:54:32 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 3:39:07 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/tesla-model-y-out-of-control-at-full-speed-the-footage-is-terrifying/vi-AA15NorJ?cvid=b116ea5578194130e42652ef882f3777&category=foryou

A Tesla car crashes in China. The company that makes that range of electric cars hasn\'t done anything worth commenting on.

Sewage Sweeper reminds us - again - that he hasn\'t got much grasp of reality.

So says the IDIOT who advocates FIREBOMBING and NUKING his own damn country!

Yet another one of Sewage Sweeper\'s fatuous delusions.

No, Bozo, they are YOUR fatuous delusions.

Or so you like to think. The evidence doesn\'t support you, but you do have a habit of misunderstanding evidence in ways that supports your preferred point of view.

It marks you as an idiot, but that doesn\'t seem to worry you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 3:41:13 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 8:26:01 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 5:55:48 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 12:54:32 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 3:39:07 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/tesla-model-y-out-of-control-at-full-speed-the-footage-is-terrifying/vi-AA15NorJ?cvid=b116ea5578194130e42652ef882f3777&category=foryou

A Tesla car crashes in China. The company that makes that range of electric cars hasn\'t done anything worth commenting on.

Sewage Sweeper reminds us - again - that he hasn\'t got much grasp of reality.

So says the IDIOT who advocates FIREBOMBING and NUKING his own damn country!

Yet another one of Sewage Sweeper\'s fatuous delusions.

No, Bozo, they are YOUR fatuous delusions.

Or so you like to think. The evidence doesn\'t support you, but you do have a habit of misunderstanding evidence in ways that supports your preferred point of view.

It marks you as an idiot, but that doesn\'t seem to worry you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 3:41:13 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 8:26:01 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 5:55:48 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 12:54:32 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 3:39:07 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/tesla-model-y-out-of-control-at-full-speed-the-footage-is-terrifying/vi-AA15NorJ?cvid=b116ea5578194130e42652ef882f3777&category=foryou

A Tesla car crashes in China. The company that makes that range of electric cars hasn\'t done anything worth commenting on.

Sewage Sweeper reminds us - again - that he hasn\'t got much grasp of reality.

So says the IDIOT who advocates FIREBOMBING and NUKING his own damn country!

Yet another one of Sewage Sweeper\'s fatuous delusions.

No, Bozo, they are YOUR fatuous delusions.

Or so you like to think. The evidence doesn\'t support you, but you do have a habit of misunderstanding evidence in ways that supports your preferred point of view.

It marks you as an idiot, but that doesn\'t seem to worry you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 07:16:18 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 01 Jan 2023 11:31:26 -0800) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
0dn3rh1i79j4tondt3pgtji7m5d3rq8f2c@4ax.com>:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ4wk6bOtJI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpd1KwMXE5o

We get no rain all summer and then get \"atmospheric rivers\" worth. The
geometry of SF funnels a lot of water into the low spots. We had a
mudslide+rock just the other side of the canyon from our house, on
O\'Shaughnessy Boulevard.

5\" rain in one day is a record. 20\" a year is common.

We have a single sewage+drainage system, which can be nasty.

Same here, Dec 31 was the warmest ever recorded,
at midnight I had like +15.1 C Celsius...
and it has been raining now intermittently for week.

Sugar Bowl, the ski area at the Sierra peak, got 34\" of snow in the
last 24 hours, 216\" so far, and the snow season has just begun. They
get 80 feet in a good year.

Our summer water supply is mostly snowmelt from the mountains.

We\'re expecting another few big \"atomospheric rivers\" this week. Once
the ground saturates, we get floods and landslides. We have a lot of
non-native eucalyptus trees which get very tall and tend to fall over
when it rains.
 
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 07:16:18 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 01 Jan 2023 11:31:26 -0800) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
0dn3rh1i79j4tondt3pgtji7m5d3rq8f2c@4ax.com>:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ4wk6bOtJI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpd1KwMXE5o

We get no rain all summer and then get \"atmospheric rivers\" worth. The
geometry of SF funnels a lot of water into the low spots. We had a
mudslide+rock just the other side of the canyon from our house, on
O\'Shaughnessy Boulevard.

5\" rain in one day is a record. 20\" a year is common.

We have a single sewage+drainage system, which can be nasty.

Same here, Dec 31 was the warmest ever recorded,
at midnight I had like +15.1 C Celsius...
and it has been raining now intermittently for week.

Sugar Bowl, the ski area at the Sierra peak, got 34\" of snow in the
last 24 hours, 216\" so far, and the snow season has just begun. They
get 80 feet in a good year.

Our summer water supply is mostly snowmelt from the mountains.

We\'re expecting another few big \"atomospheric rivers\" this week. Once
the ground saturates, we get floods and landslides. We have a lot of
non-native eucalyptus trees which get very tall and tend to fall over
when it rains.
 
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 07:16:18 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 01 Jan 2023 11:31:26 -0800) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
0dn3rh1i79j4tondt3pgtji7m5d3rq8f2c@4ax.com>:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ4wk6bOtJI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpd1KwMXE5o

We get no rain all summer and then get \"atmospheric rivers\" worth. The
geometry of SF funnels a lot of water into the low spots. We had a
mudslide+rock just the other side of the canyon from our house, on
O\'Shaughnessy Boulevard.

5\" rain in one day is a record. 20\" a year is common.

We have a single sewage+drainage system, which can be nasty.

Same here, Dec 31 was the warmest ever recorded,
at midnight I had like +15.1 C Celsius...
and it has been raining now intermittently for week.

Sugar Bowl, the ski area at the Sierra peak, got 34\" of snow in the
last 24 hours, 216\" so far, and the snow season has just begun. They
get 80 feet in a good year.

Our summer water supply is mostly snowmelt from the mountains.

We\'re expecting another few big \"atomospheric rivers\" this week. Once
the ground saturates, we get floods and landslides. We have a lot of
non-native eucalyptus trees which get very tall and tend to fall over
when it rains.
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top