Benefit from implementing ROS(2) on microcontrollers

edit

One of the main benefits I see is that it removes the intermediate node (ie: the bridge or relay) if the nodes are actually running on the microcontroller (instead of using a bridging approach).

This has multiple advantages:

1. remove possible bottleneck (the bridge)
2. remove possible point of failure (the bridge)
3. allow plug-and-play bringup of nodes on microcontrollers (ie: just plug in the network cable and out come the ROS 2 messages)

As it was really difficult to run ROS 1 on (actual) embedded devices (due to resource constraints), having to start these bridge nodes (also called: drivers) was necessary. But at the same time I've always found it really limiting, annoying and cumbersome.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

I see your point, was already thinking in the same direction. But for me this is not a "real" benefit. Conceptually it's sounds for sure nicer but I guess both ways would work. However bridging seems to be implemented faster adding the benefit of not limiting your ressources on the microcontroller side. But i never implemented one of those approaches so maybe thinking too unrealistic. My thougths about your advantages:

1. Where you think the bridge could be a bottleneck? Beeing to slow in converting the data into ROS? Can you avoid it with the Ros on uC approach or do you only shift it?
2. Is a risk yes but should be avoidable by serious programming/testing
3. plug-and-play is for sure a nice feature and so far the strongest benefit i can think of