Where Are Tomorrow's Embedded Developers?

An anonymous reader writes "In a similar vein to the previous discussion about the New York professors taking Java to task for damaging Computer Science education, Mike Anderson of the PTR group wonders why it's so hard to find good embedded developers these days. 'As for today's CS programs, it seems that long gone are the computer architecture classes, writing code in assembly language (or even C at this point) and engineering software economics. In fact, a large number of CS majors apparently believe that everything can be implemented in a virtual machine and that both memory and [CPU] cycles are infinite.'"

Comments

There are not many Klingon programmers graduating

[arivanov]

The profession has become domesticated.

The new graduates are uncomfortable with: "Klingon multitasking systems do not support "time-sharing". When a Klingon program wants to run, it challenges the scheduler in hand-to-hand combat and owns the machine." They have to use java, schedulers, vm protection, etc.

On a more serious note, to do real embedded programming you need to know data representation in and out because you tend to manipulate your data directly, no band-aids allowed. Until the embedded systems will support band-aids as used in todays college it will be a profession for the myopic geeks with grey pony-tails or the ones who are way on their way to well developed pattern boldness.

Re:College Classes

[xenocide2]

The trouble is, a great deal of CS graduates feel that Computer Science is the fastest way not to being an engineer or scientist, but to becoming a programmer. A disturbing number of my fellow students avoid classes perceived to be lots of work, which is exactly what this guy is asking for. Debugging embedded hardware is not easy or simple, and requires massive amounts of attention to detail to get anything to work at all.

Anderson's question might have been equivalent to "where are all the graphics programmers?" or "where are all the operating systems programmers?" but for one thing: this article presupposes a shortage to convince readers they need embedded skills, because PTR offers training in Linux embedded system programming. Frankly, the more important skill in embedded systems isn't pipeline stalls, but the Chinese language; most of the work has gone to where the embedded hardware is made: East Asia. Case in point: the only work this guy appears to get is defense contracting, where clients can't outsource / offshore the work.

Re:College Classes

[smellotron]

Some schools might offer good CS courses but the majority of grads I deal with know nothing more than buzzword garbage, and I am not alone in my views; I regularly hear associates complain that they can't get a CS person who knows their ass from an infinite loop.

I hear you, man. I am a recent graduate myself (UIUC), so I see this from the other side. Our program is pretty good compared to most things that I've heard on the net (and various people I've met from CMU/MIT/Standford/...), but a couple of things to point out:

• There were a good deal of idiotic undergrad slackers. I wouldn't trust these people to do anything except ride the wave of someone else's success. These were the ones who didn't understand why we used OCaml for one class here, or were expected to use Java at the drop of a hat (gasp, no hand-holding?).
• There were a few people that were adept at being thrown into a computery environment and just learning. This definitely isn't CS, but these people could set up subversion/trac/apache/whatnot on their home servers, or build a decent Makefile—in short, effective tools users.
• There were a few people (most of which ended up in grad school) who could really nail algorithms and "true" CS topics. Even though this is the heart of the program, I've met so many people who only came out with a weak grasp of the theory.
• There were a good amount of people who were capable of programming. Most of the good "true CS" people also fell into this category, since programming is the natural way to express an algorithm. These people showed up a lot in the higher level subject-matter courses, such as networking (yes, TCP/UDP/IP among other things), graphics (OpenGL, raytracing, general linear algebra), etc. Due to the nature of the program, there's not much opportunity for a lot of these types of classes unless you come in with a lot of AP credit or you stay an extra year. This set of people is probably the class of people that you've seen at interviews that seem like they have an OK head on their shoulder, but still don't seem to have a clue about developing software (which is OK, because it's a CS degree, not a 2-year trade school).
• No one touched assembly outside of the required MIPS coursework. My friends in Computer Engineering did a lot of low-level programming (mostly on x86), but the CS program only covered the bare minimum to understand the physics/logic of a computer, let alone be proficient in handling it.
• The only professor who cared about anything remotely buzzwordish was Ralph Johnson; that was essentially part of is role, since UIUC doesn't have a separate software engineering discipline. Even still, most of his focus was around architecture and decent real-world software design, rather than AJAX/Ruby/whatnot. Most of the people in his courses were the ones that had relevant software-development experience and would be excellent hires out of school... but they're still a different beast from the research-oriented curriculum that the rest of the school pushes.

Re:College Classes

[DaveV1.0]

They will come from people who bother to learn assembly and C and experiment on their own and can show their worth.