Archive for the ‘Pro embedded’ Category
Qt, the development platform for Symbian and future MeeGo technology remains critically important and Nokia is committed to investment in Qt as the best toolset for those platforms and we are focusing on future developments in part by our plan to divest the commercial licensing business, used mainly by developers of embedded and desktop applications beyond the mobile market.
Qt — фреймворк для разработки под Symbian и MeeGo, остается критически важным. Nokia делает инвестиции в Qt, являющимся лучшим набором инструментов для разработки под эти платформы, и мы делаем упор в нашем плане на уходе от коммерческого лицензирования, которое используется в основном разработчиками встраиваемых и настольных приложений за пределами рынка мобильной связи.
So in short, there are some very exciting things happening in Symbian and Qt, lots of new devices and platform improvements and we believe consumers will be downloading great developer apps from these devices. All together, this means your investment in Qt is a safe choice for skill competency, monetization opportunities and brand awareness amongst our millions of users.
Вообщем, есть очень интересные вещи происходящие внутри Symbian и Qt, такие как множество новых устройств, улучшений в самой платформе. Мы считаем, что потребители в конечном итоге будут загружать отличные приложения для таких устройств. Все вместе это означает, что ваши инвестиции в Qt являются безопасным выбором для наращивания компетенций, получения прибыли и узнаваемости бренда среди миллионов пользователей.
Подводя итог, можно сказать, что пока у Nokia хватило сил не бросить MeeGo а за ней и Qt. Потому что, как ни крути, а главная цель Qt на будущее — это кроссплатформенная разработка программ для планшетников и смартфонов. И MeeGo — это единственная платформа с которой Qt может стартовать.
Outsourcing increasing the need for test automation
Nearly 50% of our respondents to our 2009 Embedded System Engineering survey reported the outsourcing of one or more engineering tasks to external companies for current projects. This rate is a substantial increase over our 2008 survey results in which less than 40% of respondents cited engineering work being outsourced.
Moreover, software application/middleware development/test – arguably the most important discipline for end product differentiation – was cited by our survey respondents as the most frequently outsourced engineering task, underscoring the importance of establishing and/or enhancing software testing practices going forward.
Well before the early signs of an economic downtown began tightening R&D budgets, leading embedded system manufacturers had begun embracing outsourcing in greater numbers and frequency as a means to tap into cheaper labor markets, reduce operational expenses, and improve organizational agility.
The sophistication and complexity of embedded software requirements have also continued to rise at the same time as these other cost and time-to-market demands already strain project teams’ available bandwidth and productivity.
The ability to effectively manage software component quality can only become more important going forward as a greater portion of engineering work is outsourced to third parties. We expect that this continued growth in outsourcing will similarly augment growth in the commercial automated test and verification tool market as OEMs look to mitigate some of the risks associated with work performed by engineers unfamiliar with legacy code bases and dispersed across multiple geographies and time zones.
Written by Valery Portnyagin
02/02/2010 at 17:02
VDC recently conducted a survey of the embedded engineering community to determine how engineers view the different types of development tools that they use.
For each of the tools an engineer reported using, they were asked to rate it based upon the following factors:
- Return on Investment (ROI)
- Effect on project schedule/time to market
- Criticality to success of the current project
- Impact on product quality
- Impact on engineering productivity
- Difficulty/ease to learn to use tool
- Level of corporate endorsement
- Criticality/need for tool to be well integrated with other tools used
- Likeliness to use current brand of tool again
Products within the following classes of tools are rated in this study:
- Bug/issue track tools
- Build/production management tools
- Build tools
- Dynamic GUI/HMI design tools
- Dynamic testing tools
- ESL synthesis tools
- IP/licensing/compliance/component management tools
- Model-based testing tools
- Project management tools
- Proprietary language-based modeling tools
- Requirements management tools
- Source/change/configuration management tools
- Standard language-based modeling tools
- Static analysis tools
- Virtual system prototyping/simulation tools
More detailed information is also available to provide insight into how engineers’ opinions and preferences vary by:
- Size of company’s engineering organization
- Current project team size
- Vertical market
Stayed tuned to our blog over the coming weeks as we post about some of the most interesting findings from this research and provide more information about its general availability and packaging.
Written by Valery Portnyagin
02/02/2010 at 16:48
We asked and the engineers have responded.
Out of the 15 types of engineering tools we asked engineers to rate,
IP/Licensing/Compliance/Component Management tools (e.g. Black Duck Protex, Palamida, Protecode Build IP Analyzer, etc.) emerged as the highest rated tools.
These tools allow organizations to audit the lineage and licensing restrictions of the various open source software components they are considering integrating into their own commercial products.
Although these tools are used less commonly than some other types of tools we asked about, it is clear that the growing use of open source software within embedded projects is driving engineering teams to reevaluate the sources of and the ways in which they use “free” software.
These tools can not only save engineers time doing this research themselves, but they can also help organizations limit software liabilities by preventing any future litigation, production line stoppages, or the “contamination” of their own proprietary software assets.
Project Management tools (e.g. Microsoft Project, Atlassian JIRA, TechExcel DevPlan, etc.) received the lowest rating for their criticality to the success of a project.
After seeing this result, our first reaction was the result must have been driven by the larger number of engineers versus that of project managers responding to the survey. After further inspection, we found that project manager respondents had actually rated the tools lower than their potential subordinates!
So what is our take?
First of all, it should be noted that Project Management tools garnered a mean score of 3.30 on a 5 point Likert scale – so they are still somewhat critical in the eyes of the engineering community at large.
Secondly, we expect that you would be hard pressed to find many engineers (or project managers for that matter) that would be willing to acknowledge that a tool is/could be the key to their ability to manage their projects work — the experience levels and skill sets of the project team members (not to mention the other software development tools available to the team) are too important to the success of a project.
More information about what tools were rated and what questions we asked can be seen in our blog posting from November 30th.
Stayed tuned to our blog over the coming weeks as we post more interesting findings from this research and provide more information about its general availability and packaging.
Written by Valery Portnyagin
02/02/2010 at 16:40