From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,3025dd6d917b499c X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.180.86.97 with SMTP id o1mr3124745wiz.2.1350352571549; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 18:56:11 -0700 (PDT) Path: q10ni65138171wif.0!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!216.196.110.142.MISMATCH!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.panservice.it!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada, the best language with the not-so-best tool chain Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 11:13:16 +0200 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: <1vpa1g60ri6tm$.1i9u1cd31xdwz$.dlg@40tude.net> References: <38af7fb8-b0a4-4a31-87aa-b7b698cc89c3@googlegroups.com> <3ca0ffd0-1764-484b-8fab-17c0d2dd9463@googlegroups.com> <1f645050-cf4c-40bf-a797-9687b69e4a54@googlegroups.com> <18ats2960nsvm$.kfufsnul13aq$.dlg@40tude.net> <5072c9ae$0$6562$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <4keoa6epdxt7.1nnwxy7v7ar90.dlg@40tude.net> <5072dc68$0$6554$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <1f7cmfp1l65w1.1deog8cfxbs0u$.dlg@40tude.net> <5072e37a$0$6556$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <1wzhg6cdjkwjj$.uq66rzr2nlgy.dlg@40tude.net> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2012-10-09T11:13:16+02:00 List-Id: On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 20:44:51 +0000 (UTC), Simon Clubley wrote: > On 2012-10-08, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 11:29:15 -0700 (PDT), Patrick wrote: >> >>> Yes but my main point was the lack of GPIO, please comment on this >> >> From my point of view it looks just useless. We are using modular I/O >> systems EtherCAT-, XCP-, ModBus-, CAN-/CANOpen-based. > > You are still thinking like a professional engineer doing safety > critical work on large systems. :-) We install such systems for example, for CHP. It is a low cost board with EtherCAT terminals to measure temperature, digital I/O to control the boiler and a GPRS to communicate the central station. Is it "large"? From the software point of view it is, because you cannot make it working without a lot of software. All embedded moves in this direction. > To understand what people like me are telling you, you need to start > thinking like a hobbyist interested in things like robotics and paying > for their experiments out of their own pockets. I understand them because this sort of calculation we have to do all the time. We found out that modular I/O terminals are sufficiently cheaper than GPIO, even if one does not count software costs. The real problem for a hobbyist lies elsewhere. The protocols used to communicate such terminals are incredibly complex. The masters required to talk to them are commercial products, like ours. There is a free EtherCAT master for Linux, but it does barely over 20% of the work required to configure the terminals, and it is in C. ModBus (over TCP/IP) is much less complicated, but ModBus terminals are more expensive and ModBus systems are relatively slow (5ms is the limit). Still ModBus could be a good start. http://www.beckhoff.com/english.asp?bus_terminal/bc7300.htm Ludovic wrote it much better than me. People are paying too much attention to the hardware. >> It does not make sense to me to have an integrated I/O or some stackable >> I/O board (PC104). Too expensive, non-extensible, unmaintainable, unsafe, >> never meets any requirements etc. > > Speaking as a hobbyist (at least in embedded work), I can tell you I > consider the PC104 to be too bulky and yesterday's technology. Yes. Any integrated or semi-integrated solution will be bulky because of cabling. With terminals you need just one Ethernet port. The sensors and actuators can be placed directly near the machine. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de