9
\$\begingroup\$

and are 2 different tags. Should they be merged since these terms are often used interchangeably?

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ I think it makes sense to merge them. \$\endgroup\$
    – Mitu Raj
    Jul 7 at 19:34
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ If they are merged, I think we should keep "processor" as it is the more generic term. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 9 at 23:00
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ but "microprocessor" is more commonly used, by a factor of 6. \$\endgroup\$
    – user253751
    Jul 15 at 15:40
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Is 'processor' used on any significant questions where 'microprocessor' would be wrong? Is anybody asking about PDP-8s. If not, then keep the more popular microprocessor, and ditch the outdated processor, generic though it is. \$\endgroup\$
    – Neil_UK
    Jul 19 at 5:15
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ As long as we have 'microcontroller' and 'microprocessor' as distinct tags, that covers most use cases. The exception would be for the folk on the Retrocomputing stack, which interestingly does not have a 'processor' tag. \$\endgroup\$
    – Neil_UK
    Jul 21 at 13:07
-3
\$\begingroup\$

Every microprocessor is a processor, but not every processor is a microprocessor.

\$\endgroup\$
7
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Do you have concrete examples of a processor that would not be a microprocessor? The ENIAC maybe? How often are these very devices mentioned in EE.SE questions? How often has "processor" been used when it could not be "microprocessor"? How often is "processor" used when it could actually be "microprocessor"? As I see it, the actual consequence of having two separate tags is that somebody who follows "microprocessor" misses a big chunk of the questions he's interested in. \$\endgroup\$
    – dim
    Jul 19 at 9:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ FPGA, programmed as such? An analog filter? I'd say "processor" is almost a meta tag. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 19 at 13:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ Even microprocessor is too meta, we already have CPU tag @dim \$\endgroup\$ Jul 19 at 13:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ Microprocessor is a fine tag. When you use it, everyone knows exactly what you're talking about. CPU may or may not be. I suspect it's fine, and more pertinent to questions dealing with architecture. Processor, in and of itself, means little. I'd nuke processor, maybe completely editing to change it to microprocessor after scanning all 109 (!!!!!!!!) questions so tagged. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 19 at 14:09
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Back to examples -- ACSL was a processor, converting ACSL statements to Fortran. A compiler is a processor that converts computer language to machine code. The term is just too vague to be a useful tag. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 19 at 14:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ScottSeidman What exactly is a microprocessor? I know what a CPU is \$\endgroup\$ Jul 20 at 3:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ShashankVM en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor \$\endgroup\$ Jul 20 at 12:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .