Post by thread:[PIC] An interesting discussion: Are PIC's seen as

> > There is still an interesting discussion going on under > http:SLASHSLASHwwwDOTpicbasicDOTcoDOTukSLASHforumSLASHshowthre > adDOTphp?t=6539 > titled PICs - Playground or 'serious' microcontroller. Or at http://www.picbasic.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=6539 if you like. The discussion is about the perception of the PIC by others. E.g. if you were bidding on the development of a device, and the company who you were preparing the bid for heard that you were going to use a PIC, would they be concerned about that choice; perhaps thinking that you were less that totally professional due to the large volume of hobbyists who use PICs. Perhaps the people in the company would say, "PIC? Isn't that the little toy chip that all the hobbyists use? Basic stamp and propeller clocks and educational junk? Is this guy a REAL embedded engineer or just moonlighting?" Where as if you said you were going with a Motorola CPU they would "KNOW" that you "MUST" be a professional because all the development stuff for that is mega expensive and you can't get Motorola parts unless you know some one at the company (apparently anyway) and so on. I'm not trying to say that any of that is true, just that someone raised the concern that this might be the perception of a financier on the periphery of the embedded design world. --- James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin spam_OUTjamesnewtonTakeThisOuTpiclist.com 1-619-652-0593 phone http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786 PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com P.S. The "PIC in a box in a box" content of that thread is NOT appropriate to the PICList. Please don't make wise... Um... Please don't joke about that in less than sensitive ways. Of course, having pointed that out, now there is no doubt that the subject will... Err... My concern is that we not start on about sex here, ok? Please? Thanks. Sigh...

At 03:42 PM 8/23/2007, you wrote: {Quote hidden}> > > > There is still an interesting discussion going on under > > http:SLASHSLASHwwwDOTpicbasicDOTcoDOTukSLASHforumSLASHshowthre > > adDOTphp?t=6539 > > titled PICs - Playground or 'serious' microcontroller. > > >Or at >http://www.picbasic.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=6539 if you like. > >The discussion is about the perception of the PIC by others. E.g. if you >were bidding on the development of a device, and the company who you were >preparing the bid for heard that you were going to use a PIC, would they be >concerned about that choice; perhaps thinking that you were less that >totally professional due to the large volume of hobbyists who use PICs. >Perhaps the people in the company would say, "PIC? Isn't that the little toy >chip that all the hobbyists use? Basic stamp and propeller clocks and >educational junk? Is this guy a REAL embedded engineer or just >moonlighting?" > >Where as if you said you were going with a Motorola CPU they would "KNOW" >that you "MUST" be a professional because all the development stuff for that >is mega expensive and you can't get Motorola parts unless you know some one >at the company (apparently anyway) and so on. A little extreme, but you can't become a Motorola consultant as a very small company (a few engineers) whereas you can for Microchip. >I'm not trying to say that any of that is true, just that someone raised the >concern that this might be the perception of a financier on the periphery of >the embedded design world. Yes, IME, there is some truth in this. The combination of "BASIC" and "PIC" screams "non-professional" to me. That said, there are a lot of cases where the choice of microcontroller and/or language does not matter much-- the value is added elsewhere. In which case, why even mention it? I don't see it is a positive in most cases. If it's a REALLY strong negative in some case, then maybe it's in the same class as people who won't work with you because of your skin color, religion, nationality or whatever. It happens, suck it up, and move on. I've seen prototypes made from all sorts of junk and surplus; using one brand of micro vs. another is the least of it. Every (real) semiconductor company is "professional" because a fab line costs a lot of money. Even fabless companies such as Rabbit have to come up with *some* cash I'd imagine (or maybe they pool their credit cards to place foundry orders hahah). >P.S. The "PIC in a box in a box" content of that thread is NOT appropriate >to the PICList. Melanie sounds like a marketing type person. I don't agree with her comments about relays-- one of the companies she mentions sold a large quantity of expensive relays to my company with fake UL markings on them. We lost all the money for the parts and hundreds of thousands of dollars more due to the failures (sticking on and burning stuff up, which Siemens never did). What does that have to do with s*x? Well, we certainly got f***** on that deal. >Best regards, Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" .....speffKILLspam@spam@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

This discussion takes many forms and has existed for, well, ever. Visual Basic is used on production production and systems very pervasively, and yet many (most?) programmers scoff at it, as though it weren't a real programming language. When plastic was introduced in its various forms and permutations, people discussed how metal had and enduring, weighty quality. There are plastics now that are better than many metals in a given application for strength and durability vs weight and especially cost. Every tool has its place, and when someone indicates that one tool is universally 'bad' then all I can think is how sad it must be to have such a limited tool set. Still, you can use a hammer for practically anything, so I suppose they don't see it as a limitation, and it does provide a greater focus for them. Interestingly, Microchip did a very smart thing by embracing the hobbyist community in the mid-90s - now all those designers are in the work force, just as Apple did when they provided computers at discounts for primary schools (which they pretty much gutted just as it would have started showing results). You do gain certain drawbacks, such as the hobbyist stigma, when you do that, but as long as the bottom line remains strong it really doesn't matter, and merely becomes a PR problem that is simply dealt with by highlighting successful designs. -Adam On 8/23/07, James Newtons Massmind <jamesnewtonKILLspammassmind.org> wrote: {Quote hidden}> > > > > There is still an interesting discussion going on under > > http:SLASHSLASHwwwDOTpicbasicDOTcoDOTukSLASHforumSLASHshowthre > > adDOTphp?t=6539 > > titled PICs - Playground or 'serious' microcontroller. > > > Or at > http://www.picbasic.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=6539 if you like. > > The discussion is about the perception of the PIC by others. E.g. if you > were bidding on the development of a device, and the company who you were > preparing the bid for heard that you were going to use a PIC, would they be > concerned about that choice; perhaps thinking that you were less that > totally professional due to the large volume of hobbyists who use PICs. > Perhaps the people in the company would say, "PIC? Isn't that the little toy > chip that all the hobbyists use? Basic stamp and propeller clocks and > educational junk? Is this guy a REAL embedded engineer or just > moonlighting?" > > Where as if you said you were going with a Motorola CPU they would "KNOW" > that you "MUST" be a professional because all the development stuff for that > is mega expensive and you can't get Motorola parts unless you know some one > at the company (apparently anyway) and so on. > > I'm not trying to say that any of that is true, just that someone raised the > concern that this might be the perception of a financier on the periphery of > the embedded design world. > > --- > James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin > .....jamesnewtonKILLspam.....piclist.com 1-619-652-0593 phone > http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786 > PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com > > P.S. The "PIC in a box in a box" content of that thread is NOT appropriate > to the PICList. Please don't make wise... Um... Please don't joke about that > in less than sensitive ways. Of course, having pointed that out, now there > is no doubt that the subject will... Err... My concern is that we not start > on about sex here, ok? Please? Thanks. > > Sigh... > > > -

> Yes, IME, there is some truth in this. The combination of > "BASIC" and "PIC" screams "non-professional" to me. PICAXE does the same for me. But at the end of the day the job gets done, it's simply some person's way of getting the code into the silicon I have a meeting on Monday with a couple of backers and they don't care what micro I'm using. They are astute enough to see that the circuit works, and that's all that matters Some years ago I made a prototype for a sporting application (using a Motorola as it happens). The client was happy with the result and started looking around for money. His unmoveable requirement was that the money should come from somebody in that sport. I felt that totally irrelevant - backing is backing. By restricting himself so severely he never did find that money. In his case he didn't judge the micro, he judged people outside of the application Now he's dead and the prototype is poked away in my cupboard, also in a box that probably won't get opened for a long time

I could suggest an ARM...... Still the thing about design is whether it works well...... John --- James Newtons Massmind <EraseMEjamesnewtonspam_OUTTakeThisOuTmassmind.org> wrote: > > > > > There is still an interesting discussion going on > under > > > http:SLASHSLASHwwwDOTpicbasicDOTcoDOTukSLASHforumSLASHshowthre > > adDOTphp?t=6539 > > titled PICs - Playground or 'serious' > microcontroller. > > > Or at > www.picbasic.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=6539 {Quote hidden}> if you like. > > The discussion is about the perception of the PIC by > others. E.g. if you > were bidding on the development of a device, and the > company who you were > preparing the bid for heard that you were going to > use a PIC, would they be > concerned about that choice; perhaps thinking that > you were less that > totally professional due to the large volume of > hobbyists who use PICs. > Perhaps the people in the company would say, "PIC? > Isn't that the little toy > chip that all the hobbyists use? Basic stamp and > propeller clocks and > educational junk? Is this guy a REAL embedded > engineer or just > moonlighting?" > > Where as if you said you were going with a Motorola > CPU they would "KNOW" > that you "MUST" be a professional because all the > development stuff for that > is mega expensive and you can't get Motorola parts > unless you know some one > at the company (apparently anyway) and so on. > > I'm not trying to say that any of that is true, just > that someone raised the > concern that this might be the perception of a > financier on the periphery of > the embedded design world. > > --- > James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin > jamesnewtonspam_OUTpiclist.com 1-619-652-0593 phone > http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786 > PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com > > P.S. The "PIC in a box in a box" content of that > thread is NOT appropriate > to the PICList. Please don't make wise... Um... > Please don't joke about that > in less than sensitive ways. Of course, having > pointed that out, now there > is no doubt that the subject will... Err... My > concern is that we not start > on about sex here, ok? Please? Thanks. > > Sigh... > > > --

William "Chops" Westfield <westfw <at> mac.com> writes: > >>> PICs - Playground or 'serious' microcontroller. > > But I don't think it would be any more of a disaster than putting the > kiosk programmer on the PIC-based fan control project. Many times people who ask such rhetoric questions disregard the fact that there is a PIC in their car remote, several Microchip low dropout regulators in many of his electronic devices (like mp3 player etc), embedded linux in his dsl router/firewall/modem, *nix runs their ISPs server and spam filter and likely their printer. They disregard key industry information such as the fact that Microchip is the industry leader for small micros (8-14 bit). And above all they disregard the fact that over 85% of the devices they have concerns about, regarding the qualifications of who made them, were designed and manufactured by people who do not speak English, do not have anything resembling what passes for a degree in the west, and who often make significantly less than $500 a month, yet call themselves relatively well off where they live. Maybe that question would have been a legitimate one in 1950, 1960, 1970, maybe even in 1980. But it has not been legitimate for the last thirty years at lest imho. Peter P.

At 07:27 PM 8/23/2007, you wrote: >Bob Axtell wrote: > > Jinx wrote: > > > >>> Yes, IME, there is some truth in this. The combination of > >>> > >>> > >> > "BASIC" and "PIC" screams "non-professional" to me. > >> > >> > > So what...? >I see on the MCHP web site that Microchip shipped its two billionth >Flash microcontroller this quarter. > >To me, this is a long way from "Hobby" >bill in WV Okay, let me make my opinion on this perfectly clear:- The vast majority of *PICs* are used in solid professional designs, are well applied and perform reliably. A majority of PIC *designs*, OTOH, are sub-par, so it's a kind of (weak) warning flag that there may be issues that are not immediately obvious that might take more time and/or money to resolve. As could be a zillion other things that a potential investor might notice. A design using a PIC produced by an engineer who has designed similar (and especially commercially successful) products should certainly not be any kind of liability, and it might well be a positive in areas where PICs traditionally have a real or perceived advantage. A hobby-level design created by a hobbyist or tinkerer could mean trouble, and the investor should probably review or have the design reviewed to attempt to quantify the risk and the cost that might be involved in bringing it up to snuff in whatever area(s) it might be deficient. Totally inexperienced engineers operating without guidance or supervision can be just as bad (maybe worse). I have seen some real disasters (many involving PICs). (Before PICs became so widespread it was usually 8051s). ARM processors will be next. The barrier to entry is low, so it no longer acts as a filter, for better or worse. There are lots of other flags like that- technology that is inappropriate (too low or high end for the job), unnecessary use of expensive and specialized parts where good design would allow a better job with jellybean parts etc. etc. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" @spam@speffKILLspaminterlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

> A hobby-level design created by a hobbyist or tinkerer could mean > trouble, and the investor should probably review or have the design > reviewed to attempt to quantify the risk and the cost that might be > involved in bringing it up to snuff in whatever area(s) it might be > deficient Not absolving the creator in any way, but an investor who knows their stuff should do due diligence. I've been on the receiving end of that (accepted suggestions and alterations, although never anything too major or ego-bruising, touch wood) and dished it out as a reviewer The middle ground of software engineering is not as common, IME, as pure software and pure electronics. We in the middle are pretty well rounded when it comes to selecting a component mix, I venture to say. I've tidied up a few designs that were well-intentioned, but the designer simply didn't have the general knowledge of both fields and significant improvements were possible As for the perception of PICs as toys. Well, sometimes there are other toys I'd rather be playing with at 2am. Toys that don't need head-scratching logic. And that's what it's all about - getting the best from your components. A lot of that process is what's between the ears, not what's beween the pins

On 8/24/07, David VanHorn <KILLspammicrobrixKILLspamgmail.com> wrote: > Persuant to this discussion.. I have a project where neither a pic or > AVR will do (gasp!) > > I need to capture video from four cameras, and send it by Wi-Fi to a > linux machine. > The video is 640/480 30fps. > We are currently doing it with firewire on a puma PC-104 system, but > the power drain is huge (about 8W) and we really need to cut that by > about an order of magnitude. > > Any suggestions? > (or anyone want to prove me wrong? I will be humbled and astounded) I don't know the power drain specs on FPGAs, but yesterday I watched a demonstration a couple of masters students doing real time video processing on a 1024x768 video feed using the Virtex4 from XILINX. They said that they only used about 20% of the chips resources. Power study is here: http://www.xilinx.com/products/silicon_solutions/fpgas/virtex/virtex4/resources/Virtex-4_Power_Case_Study.pdf The graph on page 2 shows the Virtex4 pulling less than 2A at 200MHz. -Scott

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:17:40AM +1200, Jinx wrote: > > > Yes, IME, there is some truth in this. The combination of > > "BASIC" and "PIC" screams "non-professional" to me. > > PICAXE does the same for me. But at the end of the day > the job gets done, it's simply some person's way of getting > the code into the silicon Heck, on the computer side of things at the research group I'm working for right now I submitted a proposal to use Pure Data, a graphical programming language similar to Max/MSP or LabView, for the initial prototype of a simple interactive music sequencer app. I figured I could mock up all the needed functionality in about a days work and see if we wanted to pursue the project further. We ended up spending an hour of our weekly meeting (4 highly paid people attending, and me) with the lead engineer arguing that pure data was unprofessional, non-portable and limiting and we sould write the *prototype* in C++ or Java from the start. I was arguing, who cares, lets get the prototype done, we can always throw it out later and that we'd spent more money arguing over it than it would cost for me to just go and make it. In the end the non-technical managers went with my idea in the end, partially because they realised they could modify the pure data code on their own and experiment, but not the C++ or Java... - -- http://petertodd.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGzsUJ3bMhDbI9xWQRAv4rAKCgL/Gpay5k5l8JogInEHX6SmpDUgCfdwQ0 sEewn6XmKeshJ7iKIaePbH8= =3CrB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Peter Todd" <RemoveMEpeteTakeThisOuTpetertodd.ca> wrote in message news:20070824114617.GA13369@inept... > Heck, on the computer side of things at the research group I'm working > for right now I submitted a proposal to use Pure Data, a graphical > programming language similar to Max/MSP or LabView, for the initial > prototype of a simple interactive music sequencer app. I figured I could > mock up all the needed functionality in about a days work and see if we > wanted to pursue the project further. > > We ended up spending an hour of our weekly meeting (4 highly paid people > attending, and me) with the lead engineer arguing that pure data was > unprofessional, non-portable and limiting and we sould write the > *prototype* in C++ or Java from the start. I was arguing, who cares, > lets get the prototype done, we can always throw it out later and that > we'd spent more money arguing over it than it would cost for me to > just go and make it. > > In the end the non-technical managers went with my idea in the end, > partially because they realised they could modify the pure data code > on their own and experiment, but not the C++ or Java... The other nice thing about doing a prototype in a different language is that it *stays* a prototype. That is, you *have* to start over when you write the production code. This is a good thing, since it gives everyone the opportunity to rewrite things to eliminate any mistakes or clumsiness in the prototype. If you don't throw out the prototype, it morphs into the production code, often keeping a lot of code which you should have thrown away and refactored. Jeff -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 12:43 -0400, David VanHorn wrote: > > I don't know the power drain specs on FPGAs, but yesterday I watched a > > demonstration a couple of masters students doing real time video > > processing on a 1024x768 video feed using the Virtex4 from XILINX. > > They said that they only used about 20% of the chips resources. Power > > study is here: www.xilinx.com/products/silicon_solutions/fpgas/virtex/virtex4/resources/Virtex-4_Power_Case_Study.pdf > > > > The graph on page 2 shows the Virtex4 pulling less than 2A at 200MHz. > > > Hmm.. 2A would be worse than what we have now though. Actually, you are forgetting that power is V*A, the Vcore of a Vertex 4 is IIRC 1.2V, so that 2A would be about 2.4W. That said, if you look at the chart linked the power usage is about 1.5W at 200MHz, and that's a pretty full FPGA, the design you describe wouldn't use anywhere near that amount of logic. In your case (480i ish video streams) the pix clock is ~13.5MHz, so MOST of your code would run at that speed. The muxing of that data and then sending it over some fast interface would be faster, but that would be a very small part of the FPGA. If you use the FX version of the Vertex4 you get RocketIO, which are basically built in very high speed serdes (serializer/deserializers), which with some logic could easily give you the firewire interface you currently have (I'm not saying you need RocketIO for firewire, just it's easier to do it with RocketIO). TTYL

Jeff, On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:55:02 -0400, Jeff Findley wrote: {Quote hidden}>... > The other nice thing about doing a prototype in a different language is that > it *stays* a prototype. That is, you *have* to start over when you write > the production code. This is a good thing, since it gives everyone the > opportunity to rewrite things to eliminate any mistakes or clumsiness in the > prototype. > > If you don't throw out the prototype, it morphs into the production code, > often keeping a lot of code which you should have thrown away and > refactored. I agree up to a point - if you've written modules to solve particular problems (say calculations of tricky items) then it makes sense to reuse these in the live system. It depends on writing things in a reusable way in the first place, of course. But changing languages means you have to rewrite something that was working fine, and may take quite an effort to do it an another language, with possible introduction of bugs that weren't in the prototype. It rather depends what the prototype is for - a demonstration of the concept, or a first-stab at understanding the problem, or a sales tool (in the widest sense - you may not be showing it to customers but to people within the firm who have to agree for it to proceed). But going on from what you say above, I've seen it worse than that - I was in charge of a team writing an Order Processing system within the firm, and we built a mock-up of the order entry screen - there was no logic behind it, just enough of a harness to be able to use it and see if it was what the users wanted. We showed it to the manager of one of the user deparments, and got agreement that it worked the way they wanted. When I said that the system would be ready in six months' time he was flabbergasted - "But you've already done it!" was his response. He had no idea that the user interface was about 5% of our workload in creating the whole system. It was then that I realised how much of a gap there was between what we actually did and the general public's understanding of it! :-) Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Aug 25, 2007 at 01:23:02PM +0100, Howard Winter wrote: > > If you don't throw out the prototype, it morphs into the production code, > > often keeping a lot of code which you should have thrown away and > > refactored. > > I agree up to a point - if you've written modules to solve particular problems (say calculations of tricky items) then it makes sense to reuse these in > the live system. It depends on writing things in a reusable way in the first place, of course. But changing languages means you have to rewrite > something that was working fine, and may take quite an effort to do it an another language, with possible introduction of bugs that weren't in the > prototype. It rather depends what the prototype is for - a demonstration of the concept, or a first-stab at understanding the problem, or a sales tool > (in the widest sense - you may not be showing it to customers but to people within the firm who have to agree for it to proceed). In my case Pure Data is actually standard way to do that sort of app. My argument with the prototype was really more that we can easilly replace it *if* we need too, not that we *will* replace it. Now that I think of it I suspect much of that engineers complaint might have been due to him not knowing Pure Data... or maybe, that everyone else, even the non-technical people, did. > But going on from what you say above, I've seen it worse than that - I was in charge of a team writing an Order Processing system within the firm, > and we built a mock-up of the order entry screen - there was no logic behind it, just enough of a harness to be able to use it and see if it was what > the users wanted. We showed it to the manager of one of the user deparments, and got agreement that it worked the way they wanted. When I > said that the system would be ready in six months' time he was flabbergasted - "But you've already done it!" was his response. He had no idea that > the user interface was about 5% of our workload in creating the whole system. It was then that I realised how much of a gap there was between > what we actually did and the general public's understanding of it! :-) There's actually a windows GUI library out there called something along the lines of "sketch" that replaces all the standard GUI elements with ones that are fully functional, but look like they were hand drawn on paper. I think you can guess the usefullness of it. :) - -- http://petertodd.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFG0J0f3bMhDbI9xWQRAivVAKCF1UMjLskeoBzMplBxwrorPMa0/ACeLc/5 YXPRkZLgyNmLIbUaqJC9gdM= =wirD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> But going on from what you say above, I've seen it worse than > that - I was in charge of a team writing an Order Processing > system within the firm, and we built a mock-up of the order > entry screen - there was no logic behind it, just enough of a > harness to be able to use it and see if it was what the users > wanted. We showed it to the manager of one of the user > deparments, and got agreement that it worked the way they > wanted. When I said that the system would be ready in six > months' time he was flabbergasted - "But you've already done > it!" was his response. He had no idea that the user > interface was about 5% of our workload in creating the whole > system. It was then that I realised how much of a gap there > was between what we actually did and the general public's > understanding of it! :-) That's why you write a little program to jiggle the controls about and assign random colours & fonts. Make sure one of the buttons is linked to an error message too. "Well, it's only a demo." :) Tony

On 8/23/07, wouter van ooijen <spamBeGonewouterspamBeGonevoti.nl> wrote: > > Yes, IME, there is some truth in this. The combination of > > "BASIC" and "PIC" screams "non-professional" to me. > > For which value of "professional"? There are professionals that are > neither electronic nor informatics professionals! For them using an easy > tool that yields quick results makes perfect sense (== a professional > choice!). I don't use professional writing tools (literal sense, pencils > etc). Does that make me a non-professional? Wouter, You are a proffesional in what did you studied and worked 80% from your life. If you've written software then you're a proffesional in software and never get the qualification of a hardware guy which all his life designs PCB for example. If you are a surgeon then you can't treat theets like a stomatologist. PIC is a proffesional tool just for a very small segment of the electronics. You already realised that by jumping to the ARM. The guys which are struggle with 1GHz clocks and 3 to 6 Gbps serial communications will consider PIC an ugly and obsolete device.I'm almost agree with them. best wishes, Vasile

On 8/31/07, wouter van ooijen <TakeThisOuTwouterEraseMEspam_OUTvoti.nl> wrote: > > Wouter, > > You are a proffesional in what did you studied and worked 80% > > from your life. > > Well, that is a definition (yours). By that definition I don't qualify > for 'professional' in any field :) > > But note that it has a problem: take a person who has spend 100% of his > working life in the field AB. Clearly a professional by your definition. > Now some bigjob comes along to recategorize the working field, and he > decides to split AB into two professions, A and B. Now our former > professional has spend 50% in both fields, so he is no longer a > professional... Depends how far away are the fields. If you mean A=embedded software and B=manufacturing furniture then definitely that guy appears as not a proffesionist (even it could be) Discussion can take place but I have no time rightnow , sorry. Vasile

{Quote hidden}> On 8/31/07, wouter van ooijen <RemoveMEwouterTakeThisOuTvoti.nl> wrote: > > > Wouter, > > > You are a proffesional in what did you studied and worked > 80% from > > > your life. > > > > Well, that is a definition (yours). By that definition I > don't qualify > > for 'professional' in any field :) > > > > But note that it has a problem: take a person who has spend 100% of > > his working life in the field AB. Clearly a professional by > your definition. > > Now some bigjob comes along to recategorize the working > field, and he > > decides to split AB into two professions, A and B. Now our former > > professional has spend 50% in both fields, so he is no longer a > > professional... > > Depends how far away are the fields. If you mean A=embedded > software and B=manufacturing furniture then definitely that > guy appears as not a proffesionist (even it could be) > Discussion can take place but I have no time rightnow , sorry. > > Vasile Professional has different meanings, not just "you're good at what you do". Usually it means you get paid, occasionally it means you are qualified (as in certificate on the wall). Expert may be a better word. You can have Professional/Amateur & Expert/Newbie (or Expert/Useless if appropriate): | Expert | Newbie -------------------------------- Professional | | -------------------------------- Amateur | | People like Olin or Jinx are in the Professional/Expert box, Wouter is saying he's in Amateur/Expert box. Either group can answer your question, but one might send you a bill. The Professional/Newbie group has their own website - <http://www.dailywtf.com>. Tony

wouter van ooijen wrote: >> You are a proffesional in what did you studied and worked 80% from your >> life. > > Well, that is a definition (yours). By that definition I don't qualify > for 'professional' in any field :) There have been people into such discussions long before us, and some smart alec came up with a (partial) solution: dictionaries :) They help tremendously to find out what a certain word means. Not always conclusively, but (almost?) always clarifyingly. professional: From <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/professional> Noun professional (plural professionals) 1. A person who belongs to a profession 2. A person who earns his living from a specified activity" profession: From <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/profession> Noun profession (plural professions) 1. An occupation that requires expertise or a high level of skill. It seems the 80% rule is not universally accepted, and may not even apply in most cases... E.g. you may have trouble convincing some panels that you are /not/ a professional sportsman if you only have worked one single year (or even month) in your sport receiving pay :) Gerhard

> >> You are a proffesional in what did you studied and worked 80% from > >> your life. > > > > Well, that is a definition (yours). By that definition I > don't qualify > > for 'professional' in any field :) > > There have been people into such discussions long before us, > and some smart alec came up with a (partial) solution: dictionaries :) > > They help tremendously to find out what a certain word means. > Not always conclusively, but (almost?) always clarifyingly. As the prior exchange of replies suggest, it's a cultural thing. Language shifts. The 'correct' answer is 'meh, whatever' (except to the taxman). Adopting the same definition requires a change in culture, like that's going to happen. Depending where you're from, 'pro' means knowledge, certification, money, participation or fish-net stocking. (Looks like wiktionary missed one.) Look at dating sites where people describe themselves as 'professional' in the job category. That used to mean doctor or lawyer, now it means you wear a suit to work (ie I'm not blue collar). Define 'professional engineer'; that should only take a few centuries and a few more lawsuits. Tony

In the state of Ohio, and many other states a "professional Engineer" is defined as one that has 4 years of approved education, passed an exam on fundamentals, 4 years of approved practical experience, and passed an exam on a specialty. And I have simplified the requirements a bit. Privileges then include being an "expert witness" in the courts, and generating construction plans that building officials may accept as conforming to the building codes and good practice for public safety. Ohio does not distinguish between specialties (civil, structural, electrical, mechanical, etc.), but does allow practice in areas of competence. Other types of engineers (not professional) include railroad (in the UK, I think called drivers), stationary (licensed by the state to operate steam boilers and other equipment). wouter van ooijen wrote: {Quote hidden}>> professional: From <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/professional> >> >> Noun >> professional (plural professionals) >> 1. A person who belongs to a profession >> 2. A person who earns his living from a specified activity" >> > > 1. is circular end hence (IMO) meaningless, unless "profession" has a > more interesting definion. I agree with 2., but many other people (maybe > even the majority) seem to disagree. > > Wouter van Ooijen > > -- ------------------------------------------- > Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl > consultancy, development, PICmicro products > docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu > > > >

wouter van ooijen wrote: >> professional: From <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/professional> >> >> Noun >> professional (plural professionals) >> 1. A person who belongs to a profession >> 2. A person who earns his living from a specified activity" > > 1. is circular end hence (IMO) meaningless, unless "profession" has a > more interesting definion. IMO it's not circular. It would be if the definition of "profession" referred to "professional" -- but it doesn't (in that dictionary); that's why I added it to my post. Where is the circle? BTW, such references are quite common in dictionaries. AIUI this is not because they don't have anything better to write, but because when two words are very similar this doesn't necessarily mean that their meanings are in the same way derived from each other as the grammatical forms are. So saying that this is so does provide information, in that it could not be so (and is not in several cases). > I agree with 2., but many other people (maybe even the majority) seem to > disagree. Well, yes, maybe (if the few posters on this thread can classify as a majority :). But then there are other dictionaries. I just wonder why (or how, with a certain level of expertise :) discussing the meaning of a term is possible without even consulting a single dictionary, let alone several. To me, that seems to be the starting point. At the very least the discussion can then focus on the differences. Gerhard

Gerhard Fiedler wrote: {Quote hidden}> wouter van ooijen wrote: > > >>> professional: From <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/professional> >>> >>> Noun >>> professional (plural professionals) >>> 1. A person who belongs to a profession >>> 2. A person who earns his living from a specified activity" >>> >> 1. is circular end hence (IMO) meaningless, unless "profession" has a >> more interesting definion. >> > > IMO it's not circular. It would be if the definition of "profession" > referred to "professional" -- but it doesn't (in that dictionary); that's > why I added it to my post. Where is the circle? > > BTW, such references are quite common in dictionaries. AIUI this is not > because they don't have anything better to write, but because when two > words are very similar this doesn't necessarily mean that their meanings > are in the same way derived from each other as the grammatical forms are. > So saying that this is so does provide information, in that it could not be > so (and is not in several cases). > > >> I agree with 2., but many other people (maybe even the majority) seem to >> disagree. >> > > Well, yes, maybe (if the few posters on this thread can classify as a > majority :). But then there are other dictionaries. I just wonder why (or > how, with a certain level of expertise :) discussing the meaning of a term > is possible without even consulting a single dictionary, let alone several. > To me, that seems to be the starting point. At the very least the > discussion can then focus on the differences. > > Gerhard > > Dictionaries reflect what the users believe a word means. They aren't the *source* of meaning, but theoretically a reflection of what the majority believe. Over time the meaning of a word can change. Just adding my 2 kilos of fat to the fire ;->

Jake Anderson wrote: > Dictionaries reflect what the users believe a word means. They aren't > the *source* of meaning, but theoretically a reflection of what the > majority believe. ... or what it used to believe (as you say). Exactly my point -- usually a good starting point when discussing the meaning of a word. Lots of thoughts have gone in those definitions (in the better dictionaries), and it would be a pity to just waste this, wouldn't it? :) > Over time the meaning of a word can change. That's why there's no guarantee that a dictionary is right. But then, what does "right" mean? Is a consensus of ten piclist members (if there should be one :) relevant for the English-speaking population of the planet? Or more so than a collection of good dictionaries? I'm not sure... I have to consult dictionaries, probably more frequently than the average earthling, and I also like to do so. Sometimes it helps clarifying the definitions with a native speaker, but amazingly often there's an "aha" moment to be had, even for a native speaker :) Gerhard

Chris, On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 10:07:28 -0400, Chris Smolinski wrote: {Quote hidden}> >On 9/1/07, wouter van ooijen <RemoveMEwouterTakeThisOuTspamvoti.nl> wrote: > >> > People like Olin or Jinx are in the Professional/Expert box, > >> > Wouter is saying he's in Amateur/Expert box. > >> > >> Depends on the definition. For me the only reasonable definition is "one > >> who earns a substantial amount of his income doing ...", which qalifies > > > me as professional. > > > >BTW, there are some people which exchange money on the street and > >earns twice as you do. Are they proffesional ? > > 1. An occupation that requires expertise or a high level of skill. > >That's much better. > >-- > > "Professional" used to mean occupations that ran as a closed shop, > you needed your "union card" to gain membership: doctors, dentists, > lawyers, etc. Engineering only in the sense of a licensed > Professional Engineer. There are some subtle differences (in English - not sure about American! :-) between "profession", "professional" (noun) and "professional" (adjective). "The professions" are things like the legal and medical areas of employment, where membership of a professional body such as the Law Society or the Royal College of Surgeons is a requirement (we don't have licences for this sort of thing, as I believe is the case in the USA). "A professional" (noun) would be someone who worked in those areas, a member of one of those bodies. ("The oldest profession" seems to be an ironic use of the word, incidentally! :-) Profession as an adjective is used to describe someone's way of making a living as opposed to something they do in their spare time or for fun, such as a professional gardener, a professional driver, a professional engineer, a professional thief! There is no link between this usage and the "professions" that I mention above - being "a professional /job title/" doesn not mean that you are "a professional" or that you work in one of the professions. I'm an amateur electronic engineer, a professional computer person, even though I have no formal qualifications in this. At the moment, I'm a professional layabout! :-) Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England

"Carl Denk" <EraseMEcdenkspamspamBeGonealltel.net> wrote in message news:RemoveME46D96D25.7050306KILLspamalltel.net... > In the state of Ohio, and many other states a "professional Engineer" is > defined as one that has 4 years of approved education, passed an exam on > fundamentals, 4 years of approved practical experience, and passed an > exam on a specialty. And I have simplified the requirements a bit. > Privileges then include being an "expert witness" in the courts, and > generating construction plans that building officials may accept as > conforming to the building codes and good practice for public safety. > Ohio does not distinguish between specialties (civil, structural, > electrical, mechanical, etc.), but does allow practice in areas of > competence. You don't have to be an official Professional Engineer in order to hold down a job with Engineer in the title. You just can't call yourself a Professional Engineer and you don't have legal standing with the state as a Professional Engineer. I write computer software for a living but I have an Aerospace Engineering degree (I'm not a PE). In college, I had exactly one Fortran 77 course, but I held down a co-op job where I did computer programming, which led to my current full time job. The software I write is decidedly engineering related, since I write CAE/Finite Element Analysis software for a living. Many of my engineering classes directly apply to this field. In fact, I had several Finite Element Analysis classes in college, which all required a solid foundation in other engineering classes, such as structural, thermal, vibrational, and etc. analyses. So, am I an engineer or a computer programmer, or both? I'll also note that most of the people I work with who also write the same, or similar, software are engineers by degree (mostly mechanical with some aerospace and others). Where I work, we prefer people who understand the underlying engineering, otherwise the software we write would be pretty useless to our customers, who are definately engineers by profession. Jeff p.s. For me, PIC is definitely a hobby. ;-) -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

From: http://ohiopeps.org/4733/4733.021.html Ohio R.C. section 4733.021 Restricting use of title engineer by itself or with other terms (A) Except for an individual who, as part of the internal classification system of the individual’s employer, uses the title “engineer” by itself or in conjunction with another term described in division (B) of this section and who does not represent the individual’s self to the public or otherwise advertise the individual’s self as an engineer, no individual shall, in connection with the individual’s name, assume, use, or advertise: (1) The title “engineer” by itself unless the individual is an engineer; (2) The title “engineer” in conjunction with another term that modifies the title “engineer” in a manner that conveys the impression that the individual is a graduate of an accredited engineering curriculum unless the individual is a graduate of an accredited engineering curriculum. (B) Terms used in conjunction with the title “engineer” under division (A)(2) of this section that imply a person is a graduate of an accredited engineering curriculum include the following: “aerospace,” “agricultural,” “civil,” “chemical,” “computer,” “electrical,” “industrial,” “mechanics,” “mechanical,” “metallurgical,” “mining,” “naval architectural and marine,” “nuclear,” and any other term commonly used by an institution of higher learning to apply to graduates of an accredited engineering curriculum. (C) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting the use, assumption, or advertisement of the title “steam engineer” or “stationary engineer,” by or on behalf of a person licensed under *Chapter 4739 <http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4739>.* of the Revised Code, or the term “railroad engineer” or “locomotive engineer,” by or on behalf of a person authorized to operate a railroad locomotive, or the term “operating engineer,” by or on behalf of a person who operates, maintains, repairs, or manufactures light or heavy construction equipment. Jeff Findley wrote: {Quote hidden}> "Carl Denk" <cdenkSTOPspamspam_OUTalltel.net> wrote in message > news:spamBeGone46D96D25.7050306STOPspamEraseMEalltel.net... > >> In the state of Ohio, and many other states a "professional Engineer" is >> defined as one that has 4 years of approved education, passed an exam on >> fundamentals, 4 years of approved practical experience, and passed an >> exam on a specialty. And I have simplified the requirements a bit. >> Privileges then include being an "expert witness" in the courts, and >> generating construction plans that building officials may accept as >> conforming to the building codes and good practice for public safety. >> Ohio does not distinguish between specialties (civil, structural, >> electrical, mechanical, etc.), but does allow practice in areas of >> competence. >> > > You don't have to be an official Professional Engineer in order to hold down > a job with Engineer in the title. You just can't call yourself a > Professional Engineer and you don't have legal standing with the state as a > Professional Engineer. > > I write computer software for a living but I have an Aerospace Engineering > degree (I'm not a PE). In college, I had exactly one Fortran 77 course, but > I held down a co-op job where I did computer programming, which led to my > current full time job. The software I write is decidedly engineering > related, since I write CAE/Finite Element Analysis software for a living. > Many of my engineering classes directly apply to this field. In fact, I had > several Finite Element Analysis classes in college, which all required a > solid foundation in other engineering classes, such as structural, thermal, > vibrational, and etc. analyses. > > So, am I an engineer or a computer programmer, or both? I'll also note that > most of the people I work with who also write the same, or similar, software > are engineers by degree (mostly mechanical with some aerospace and others). > Where I work, we prefer people who understand the underlying engineering, > otherwise the software we write would be pretty useless to our customers, > who are definately engineers by profession. > > Jeff > p.s. For me, PIC is definitely a hobby. ;-) >