Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I used to do a lot of embedded work and found it really interesting where people draw the line on what is "embedded"

Around 2009ish, I had a coworker who swore anything over 16 bits wasn't embedded. We were working on a MMU-less uClinux ARM7 system with 16mb of RAM and no networking and that didn't meet his criteria for "true embedded".

The next job I had was a piece of customer premises equipment that ran a fairly high powered ARM board with dual gigabit ethernet links and a lot of user space written in PHP. No one on that team questioned that it was an embedded system.

It always seemed like a strange thing to gatekeep on. Personally, I base my definition more on the use case than the power of the machine.

> Around 2009ish, I had a coworker who swore anything over 16 bits wasn't embedded.

When I were a lad, if you had more than a dozen bytes of RAM it wasn't REAL embedded. /shakes-cane

I generally use your definition, though. Any computer that the end user doesn't think of as a computer (and isn't expected to maintain or directly use) is embedded, whether it's a camera with touchscreen GUI or an ABS processor in a car.

highly resource constrained, real time, bare metal (or micro kernel) embedded programmers tend to think what they do as "embedded programming". There's a certain element of truth to it if you make the distinction between "embedded system" and "embedded programming". "Embedded programming" loosely groups a bunch of techniques for dealing with real time, bare metal, resource constrained devices. But there is no real formal distinction between those things.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact