4 ms·
Replied to your comment below as well, but will reiterate my primary point here, You seem to be conflating embedded systems with safety-critical systems. There
by ramzyo 8y ago
Replied to your comment below as well, but will reiterate my primary point here,
You seem to be conflating embedded systems with safety-critical systems. There are plenty of embedded systems that are neither safety critical nor single-purpose. Also, plenty of non safety-critical embedded systems use microcontrollers that don't have the resources (RAM) to run Linux effectively (even MMU-less Linux) but could benefit from dynamic kernel capabilities like dynamic loading and unloading of drivers for hot-plugging events to support external hardware/accessories.
- TickleSteve 8y agoNo, there is a large gulf between making robust, simple embedded software and safety-critical systems, I've done both sides of that equation. Accepted general practice for (non-safety-critical) embedded software is to avoid dynamic behaviour wherever you find it. This increases robustness and makes your code a lot simpler while giving you confidence you've handled your worst-case. If you're not doing that, you're trying to do desktop-software on an embedded system.