3 ms·

I read this awesome book and multi threading embedded systems. "Practical UML Statecharts in C/C++: Event-Driven Programming for Embedded Systems" The author h

I read this awesome book and multi threading embedded systems. "Practical UML Statecharts in C/C++: Event-Driven Programming for Embedded Systems" The author has an amazing stack for psuedo real time scheduling on seriously limited hardware, http://www.state-machine.com/ http://www.state-machine.com/ . QP-nano brings async real time to PIC processors! So there really is little overhead for async architectures. I think async squeezes more out of limited hardware by avoiding busy loops waiting for IO or other synchronizations to align. I agree its more difficult to develop with async, but I strongly disagree going non-async saves you money on hardware

w_t_payne 13y ago
It's not really about the overhead. The intrinsic overhead of async. is trivial, anyway. It is more about predictability & how the system is understood. Async architectures let you have simple, easy-to-understand components, but the expense of a more complex macro-control-flow. Hardware and embedded guys spend a lot of time looking at storage 'scopes, and like things to be nice and periodic... it just fits in with the world-view a bit better. It is not so much that one is objectively better than the other, it is just about how different people's mentality works.