Question About IC Chips

[John Fields]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:36:35 -0800, "Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the
Dark Remover\"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com> wrote:

You'll have to ignore J.F.'s rants. I caught him leaving out a pullup
once, and he got all pi$$ed off at me and cursed me out.

---
Hmm... I don't usually respond negatively to technical corrections
unless they're accompanied by a slap, but I do recall that you're
usually ready to come across with some smartass remark whenever you
think you can get away with it. If such wasn't the case, then I
apologize and thank you for the correction.
---

---
See what I mean?
---

properly and, therefore, come to the conclusion that you are a bad
designer.

He speaks from experience. ;-0

---
See what I mean?

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:51:34 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Well, I'll have you know we run a fine,
upstanding newsgroup here and we don't appreciate that kind of cheesy
behavior from rat-hole residents like you who come over here looking
for handouts and spare change, harrumpff!!!

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

Speaking of cheesy...............................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[repatch]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:52:19 -0600, John Fields wrote:

---
If I've designed a piece of equipment for a client, and it works like it's
supposed to, then I've done my job and everyone is happy. If, then,
someone comes along behing me and starts trying to make changes without
knowing what they're doing, it certainly doesn't reflect badly on me, it
reflects badly on whoever was supervising the idiot programmer.
---

No, it reflects badly on the company as a whole, and since you are part of
the company it does end up reflecting badly on you.

Consider the costs then??

---
Why should I care? I didn't have anything to do with the failures. ---

My God, if everybody thought this way...

Or consider this: MCUs aren't infallible, do ugly things to the power
rails or expose them to ESD and it's very possible for the port
direction control bits to flip. Even strong RF can do it.

---
So what? If those are eventualities which are to be expected in the
field, then the proper time to address them is during the design, and if
it's prudent to add pullups or pulldowns it should be done as part of
the process, but certainly not blindly, and _cedrtainly_ not because
some idiot may come along and screw with your code. ---

It's cheap insurance, like with most insurance it's your choice whether
you want it or not. Since the cost is practically zero I don't see why you
have so much resistance to it.

It's a pointless debate anyways, some people are comfortable with the
risk and will go for it, and there are reasons to choose that route. But
unless you have a VERY specific reason NOT to include the resistors
(cost, space, etc.) I would include it even on a product in high volume.
A fraction of a cent per product is much cheaper then a rash of RMAs,
plus the damage to your company's reputation.

---
The damage to the company's repuation would have come from the idiot
programmer's work not having been supervised closely enough, not from
any hardware design fault on my part.

You know, I've worked with people who have an attitude like yours, and all
I'll say is that person no longer works for the company I work for.

If all you care about is doing it your way, and that your way seems to
work, so be it. The fact that you don't CARE that your way may result in
problems in the future, even though they are not directly your fault...
well that's just scary.

 

[Terry Given]

John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:36:35 -0800, "Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the
Dark Remover\"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com> wrote:


You'll have to ignore J.F.'s rants. I caught him leaving out a pullup
once, and he got all pi$$ed off at me and cursed me out.


---
Hmm... I don't usually respond negatively to technical corrections
unless they're accompanied by a slap, but I do recall that you're
usually ready to come across with some smartass remark whenever you
think you can get away with it. If such wasn't the case, then I
apologize and thank you for the correction.
---


I'll have to keep on him about that. [snip]


---
See what I mean?
---


properly and, therefore, come to the conclusion that you are a bad
designer.

He speaks from experience. ;-0


---
See what I mean?

Omigod, a smart-arse on usenet.... that'll be one for the record books.

I've pointed out a number of (IMO) typo's in JFs posted circuits, and
received only polite replies.

But once he got all bent out of shape, thinking I was deriding the use
of a 555 (which I wasnt, leading me to question his reading comprehension).

OTOH he wrote a fabulous waffly story about comparator hysteresis on 14
june 2004, which I printed to a PDF (yay for PDF995) and kept, so I dont
have to explain it to others yet again. So he's cetainly not an idiot,
but perhaps a bit touchy.

I do wish he and robert (oops, Fred Bloggs) would leave Larry alone
though. What a colossal waste of bandwidth, and talent.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:06:12 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:11:19 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 04:31:46 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:06:22 -0500, repatch <repatch42@yahoo.com
wrote:


If all you care about is doing it your way, and that your way seems to
work, so be it. The fact that you don't CARE that your way may result in
problems in the future, even though they are not directly your fault...
well that's just scary.

---
I'll stand behind everything I do and take full responsibility for it,
but when someone starts messing with my stuff, then the guarantee
expires. It's very simple, but obviously very difficult for crybabies
like you, who need to have their asses continually wiped for them to
understand.

As noted, *good* designers allow for what *could* happen to their
circuits under sub-optimal circumstances. 'John Fields' filed under
'do not employ'...................

---
Heh... Like what you say matters? ALL the stuff I get paid for works,
my clients are happy campers, and when they want modifications or
changes, guess what? They call _me_ because they know the work will
be done carefully and properly.

You, on the other hand, seem to blithely advocate the blind peppering
of pullups everywhere, whether they're needed or not, just because
that gives you the warm fuzzies. Pure waste and idiocy as far as I'm
concerned.

Just for grins, think about this: Say that you've designed a piece of
equipment using Pinkerton's Rule, (which mandates that pullups be hung
from every possible port) and that even though it wasn't designed to
operate in a high-EMI environment, it nonetheless finds itself in one.

Now, depending on the locations of the pullups and the length of trace
between them and their associated ports, the pullups could do more
harm than good. So now, by not having considered the possibility that
your equipment might be taken into a high-EMI environment and then,
during the design, taking whatever measures necessary to make it
immune from EMI you must admit that you didn't execute the design
properly and, therefore, come to the conclusion that you are a bad
designer.

So, you agree that all likely abuses of your design should be taken
into consideration before you sign it off. Thanks for your admission
that you're an incompetent asshole.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering