Vitaliy wrote:
> Spehro is right. The only reason we have a board that's populated on both 
> sides, is we are constrained by the enclosure we're using, and the sheer 
> number of parts, which would not fit on one side.
> 
> I was arguing that contrary to what others have said, boards populated on 
> both sides are common, and they're not "significantly more expensive" (IMO, 
> of course it depends on the definition of "significantly"). 

I think it's a very useful discussion of one of the usual many-variable 
optimization problems that make up engineering!

In the typical case in whatever niche it is I'm currently in, my board 
is constrained to a *minimum* size by the buttons and displays riding on 
it, and there ends up being plenty of space in and around them to put a 
PIC and glue logic.  Maybe this niche could be called something like 
"trivial vertical-market automation" - no BGAs, PIC16F is a good match, 
low density everything, never going to be pocket-sized anyway.

> One thing that 
> is not debatable, is that most (if not all), board assembly houses would not 
> have a problem with parts on both sides.

Agreed.
-- 
Timothy J. Weber
http://timothyweber.org
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist