| ??? 09/11/07 08:21 Read: times |
#144365 - terminology taken too strictly Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Jan Waclawek said:
I do have problems with terminology if taken too strictly Especially terms like "micro-controller" and "micro-prosessor" which have no firm or formal definition. eg, Intel just tend to rename their chips as "micro-controllers" once they're no longer cutting edge, and get "retired" from their "micro-prosessor" portfolio! This really is just a change of name - the product remains exactly the same! but I see some point in these two terms. Absolutely - there is definitely a distinction to be made, but these words alone are not sufficient to make it. We can talk about percents of relevancy... :-) Yes - they need to be taken in a limited context, not interpreted as global hard-and-fast rules |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| FP FAQ edits needed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Choosing an appropriate order of magnitude | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| excuse me? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| thx, I GOOFED | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| next version tannks Jan & Andy | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| scaling | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Certainly not! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| some inspiration | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| processor <-> controller, where is the difference? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the subtle differences are... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| terminology taken too strictly | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| controller/processor removed, FAQ inserted. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Well, there's the "standard" definition ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Of course, but makes this the one being a ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| let's put it in this way | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
quoting myself | 01/01/70 00:00 |