Everett M. Greene wrote:
> Jim Granville <n...@designtools.maps.co.nz> writes:
> 
>>This from Microsoft
>>
>>http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml;
>>jsessionid=AABMPQBOIUMWGQSNDLOSKHSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=197005873
>>
>>leads to this
>>http://www.embeddedfusion.com/default.aspx?id=76
>>http://www.embeddedfusion.com/default.aspx?id=64
>>- claims ~35x35mm module, and says this
>>
>>"The most notable aspect of the .NET Micro Framework is that it does not 
>>need any underlying operating system. The Micro Framework requires very 
>>little in the way of system resources thus reducing the overall cost of 
>>a system. (The minimum memory resources are about 384K of FLASH/ROM and 
>>256K of RAM)"
> 
> 
> 384K (or 512K) ROM and 256K RAM is "very little in the way
> of system resources"?!?  Compared to what?

Those are Microsoft's press release words, so they will mean compared 
with Vista! ;)

-jg

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:15:11 -0500, CBFalconer <c...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Eric wrote:
>> On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> No RT, C#, VS, MS.  With all those strikes against it, why should
>>> anyone ever consider using it?  You know that anything from MS is
>>> buggy, and will not be supported.
>> 
>> Microsoft's support of .NET has been extremely thorough. They have
>> gone far beyond anyone's expectations, and they even have regional
>> support centers where they offer free assistance to developers. I've
>> rattled their cage on more than one occasion.
>
>C# by itself is a turn-off.  It does not have an ISO standard.  MS
>drops more things than my cat has kittens.

http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c042926_ISO_IEC_23270_2006(E).zip

-- 
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ

"Eric" <e...@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> No RT, C#, VS, MS.  With all those strikes against it, why should
>> anyone ever consider using it?  You know that anything from MS is
>> buggy, and will not be supported.
>
> Microsoft's support of .NET has been extremely thorough. They have
> gone far beyond anyone's expectations, and they even have regional
> support centers where they offer free assistance to developers. I've
> rattled their cage on more than one occasion.
>
> They took to heart all of the criticism they got up through the 80's
> and 90's, and the company turned around in 2001. They're now far more
> open, and they're well connected with developers. Microsoft employees
> are also active in the newsgroups.
>
> It remains to be see if they understand MCUs, but this looks positive
> to me.
>
> Eric
>

If they understood the criticism then why did they produce anything .NET for 
embedded..

perhaps this is their next attempt having not learnt from the failure of 
CE..

LOL

Al Balmer <a...@att.net> wrote:
> http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c042926_ISO_IEC_23270_2006(E).zip

Not Found

The requested URL
/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c036768_ISO_IEC_23270_2003(E).zip was not
found on this server.
Apache/2.0.55 (Win32) Server at standards.iso.org Port 80

Seriously that standard is for C# 1 and 2 which has now been superceeded by C#
3. TThere is an EMCA standard for C# 3 but it's not been through ISO yet.

The big difference between the C# standard and the sya the C++ standard is
that the C# standard essentially only defines the language and there is only
enough standard library to contain standard exceptions. In contrast a large
amount of the C++ standard defines what the standard library contains.

It is therefore possible to do quite a bit with portable C++ which will
compile with  any conformant compiler.

Generally C# is used with the CLI class library which is itself
standardised. However like the full C++ class library it's huge and with an
interpreted language you don't get the option of throwing most of it away at
link time.

Even in cut down form (MS say they don't implement all of it) I suspect
this is what most of the 250K-1MB foot print of the thing is given it's
possible to write the bytecode interpreter in a few K.

-p
-- 
"Unix is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are."
 - Anonymous
--------------------------------------------------------------------

On Feb 15, 6:07 pm, "TheDoc" <the...@future-solar.com> wrote:

> If they understood the criticism then why did they produce anything .NET for
> embedded..
>
> perhaps this is their next attempt having not learnt from the failure of
> CE..

I completely understand what you're saying, and I have always laughed
at Microsoft's usage of the word "embedded" because it seemed to me
that they didn't understand the meaning of the word. I don't like CE
myself, but I love C# and .NET on the Windows platform.

But recently I saw a list of RTOS makers and market share, and it
shocked me to see that CE is a huge success! This is mostly due to
smart phones and pocket PC's, but even then, those do qualify as
embedded devices. And it was a shock to me that a lot of industrial
controllers also use CE. I never really noticed this firsthand.

Nobody is going to stop their C/C++ work immediately now that the
Micro Framework is coming. But it will find a niche and it will be
successful. And I will play with it, but I don't expect to win many
contracts to develop commercial applications for it over the next year
or two. The lack of USB and Ethernet support in the initial release of
MF will be a serious limitation, but I'm sure they'll fix that in
version 2 or 3. The only way to use USB and Ethernet in version 1 will
be through platform invoke of native code (calling C/C++ in other
words). I understand the same is true of CF cards.

Eric

On Feb 15, 4:28 pm, Paul Gotch <p...@at-cantab-dot.net> wrote:
> Eric <englere_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> To me this seems to be a "because we can product" though. To make it go
> anywhere they need a huge library of support libraries supporting the
> facilities available on common microcontrollers and they need to add JTAG
> debugging.

Well said. I can't imagine why they don't seem to know anything about
JTAG.The third party libs will definitely come out over time. In the
embedded world you need libs from companies that specialize in this
market because of the low level complexities.

> Otherwise it doesn't really provide anything you can't do with existing C
> based toolkits from incumbant vendors and it requires oodles more RAM and
> faster processors.

I think they're pushing the faster development time, and more
reliability due to managed memory.

> Another point is that with the C based tool kits you at least have the
> illusion of being able to change tools providers even if in practice it's
> very hard, the .NET stuff is essentially single source single toolchain.

Since the compilers are free, both from MS and the mono project, there
are several other companies that make IDEs, and the open source Sharp
Develop is very good now. There's even a C# addin for Eclipse. You
don't hear about the alternatives much because Visual Studio really is
very good. The IDE is much better than IAR or Keil/Arm IDEs, at least
in a general sense when we not talking about embedded debugging. I'm
not going to put away IAR when it comes to low-level bits and bytes,
at least not in the foreseeable future.

There are many third-party companies that market components and libs
for .NET. None of that will apply to the Micro Framework, but I'll
possibly join the fray of releasing some MF specific components before
long.

Eric

Paul Gotch wrote:
>Al Balmer wrote:
>> http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c042926_ISO_IEC_23270_2006(E).zip
>
>Not Found

That link worked for me, but my email client truncated the URL at the
first parenthesis. Make sure the "(E).zip" ending is there.

Related to the original post:
"Introduction to Programming for the TinyCLR"  (
http://dotnet.sys-con.com/read/84123.htm )

I have no experience-based-opinion on the subject, ( I am beginning
work on my first Windows CE project, ) but like CBFalconer I don't
hear the words "Microsoft" and "embedded" creating a beautiful harmony
when sung together.

Roberto Waltman

[ Please reply to the group,
  return address is invalid ]