3 ms·

They actually theoretically have a thing for this already. It's called AUTOSAR (now AUTOSAR Classic). It's supposed to be a component architecture to write down

They actually theoretically have a thing for this already. It's called AUTOSAR (now AUTOSAR Classic). It's supposed to be a component architecture to write down the software against a framework that can be backed by different MCUs. Of course, in practice much of the underlying esoteria of any given MCU/board configuration bled up through the abstractions and/or produced custom extensions.

RealityVoid 5y ago
And AUTOSAR is a nightmare of a framework where it's nigh impossible to understand what is going on because of the crazy abstractions.
- im_down_w_otp 5y ago
  Indeed, it's a mess and the surrounding tooling ecosystem is a pile of weird Windows GUI tools of about the quality you'd expect for very expensive tools that do very little provided to a captive customer base. It's all very circa 1990s RAD-tool mania-esque still in many ways. That said, we're working with some groups in some automotive companies who are breaking this mold rapidly.
  - RealityVoid 5y ago
    Whom, if you don't mind me asking? I would.love to see stuff change in this field.
    - im_down_w_otp 5y ago
      I can't upset the NDA Gods on this one, unfortunately. I can say one is a traditional OEM that you wouldn't necessarily expect to be the sort to take vanguard steps like this and the other is a newer OEM that's not as encumbered by tradition (though due to the supply-chain also can't rid themselves of it). Shameless plug WARNING: we (https://auxon.io https://auxon.io) are hiring for engineering, marketing, and BD if industrial & operational technology is your thing.
      - VLM 5y ago
        I never signed the NDA, although I follow the space distantly, and they went public on their own website a couple years ago with a list: BMW, Bosch, Continental, Daimler AG, Ford, General Motors, PSA Peugeot Citroën, Toyota, and Volkswagen. I always rooted for an older competitor GENIVI which (very handwavy in a general sense) boiled down to "make dbus great again". I just always have a soft spot for anything that replaces CORBA and DCOP. More or less GENIVI had the same players as AUTOSAR. I believe AUTOSAR suffers from trying to do too much; GENIVI's "all you need is a compatible bus" is the minimum you need so simplicate and add lightness and that's what should win; doesn't really matter if that guy runs QNX and that other guy runs FreeRTOS as long as the busses talk; whereas AUTOSAR tries to own and control everything top to bottom which just ends up stifling any productivity.
        im_down_w_otp 5y ago
        If you look through the "Adaptive AUTOSAR" literature and documentation that's out there you can find that enormous chunks of it are lifted straight from GENIVI's stack/specs. However, GENIVI/Adaptive-AUTOSAR tends to serve a different function in the vehicle architecture. It's mostly cockpit and less control/platform. AUTOSAR Classic is still the champ on the MCU side of the house.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

RealityVoid 5y ago

And AUTOSAR is a nightmare of a framework where it's nigh impossible to understand what is going on because of the crazy abstractions.

im_down_w_otp 5y ago
Indeed, it's a mess and the surrounding tooling ecosystem is a pile of weird Windows GUI tools of about the quality you'd expect for very expensive tools that do very little provided to a captive customer base. It's all very circa 1990s RAD-tool mania-esque still in many ways. That said, we're working with some groups in some automotive companies who are breaking this mold rapidly.
- RealityVoid 5y ago
  Whom, if you don't mind me asking? I would.love to see stuff change in this field.
  - im_down_w_otp 5y ago
    I can't upset the NDA Gods on this one, unfortunately. I can say one is a traditional OEM that you wouldn't necessarily expect to be the sort to take vanguard steps like this and the other is a newer OEM that's not as encumbered by tradition (though due to the supply-chain also can't rid themselves of it). Shameless plug WARNING: we (https://auxon.io https://auxon.io) are hiring for engineering, marketing, and BD if industrial & operational technology is your thing.
    - VLM 5y ago
      I never signed the NDA, although I follow the space distantly, and they went public on their own website a couple years ago with a list: BMW, Bosch, Continental, Daimler AG, Ford, General Motors, PSA Peugeot Citroën, Toyota, and Volkswagen. I always rooted for an older competitor GENIVI which (very handwavy in a general sense) boiled down to "make dbus great again". I just always have a soft spot for anything that replaces CORBA and DCOP. More or less GENIVI had the same players as AUTOSAR. I believe AUTOSAR suffers from trying to do too much; GENIVI's "all you need is a compatible bus" is the minimum you need so simplicate and add lightness and that's what should win; doesn't really matter if that guy runs QNX and that other guy runs FreeRTOS as long as the busses talk; whereas AUTOSAR tries to own and control everything top to bottom which just ends up stifling any productivity.
      - im_down_w_otp 5y ago
        If you look through the "Adaptive AUTOSAR" literature and documentation that's out there you can find that enormous chunks of it are lifted straight from GENIVI's stack/specs. However, GENIVI/Adaptive-AUTOSAR tends to serve a different function in the vehicle architecture. It's mostly cockpit and less control/platform. AUTOSAR Classic is still the champ on the MCU side of the house.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]