--- In 68HC12@68HC..., Kim Lux <lux@d...> wrote: > > Microsoft's C# language and their CLR are open standards, so anyone > > can give away their own tools, or sell them with no royalties to > > Microsoft. > > C# is an attempt by Microsoft to lock people in to Microsoft products. > C# isn't an open standard. Ask people on the mono team. I am well aware of these issues the mono team has with Microsoft, but frankly, they've overstepped the bounds of the open tools and have tried doing open implementations of Microsoft proprietary tools. The full C# language (including all the latest enhancements such as generics) is fully open and documented as ECMA standard 334. The Common Language Infrastructure (runtime) is open and documented as ECMA standard 335. No company or individual can ever be sued for implementing their own tools based on ECMA standards. http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~sestoft/ecma/ Some of the higher level libraries are not open standards, and recently the mono team has been looking at writing an open source version of Indigo (the Windows Communications Foundation layer for the new Windows Vista line). This is an advanced method of handling remoting and web services that is NOT an open standard. I strongly support a company's right to have some proprietary code because that pays the salaries of their employees. If Microsoft gave away all of their standards, then there would be no Microsoft. Similarly, Freescale has given us the source code for the serial monitor, but not for d-bug12. Like you, I really wish they'd give us the code for d-bug12, but I support their right to keep it closed if they choose to do so. Maybe this is a poor analogy, but I'm trying to say that many companies have trade secrets and open secrets. Eric

> Any idea what part of HC11/HC12 programming is not supported by > Eclipse/CDT already? I've been developing with it for a year with HC12 > and it works great. > no debugging, no terminal window, no automatic creation of make files and linker script files. It probably wouldn't be too hard to add a terminal window, but I haven't seen if anyone has done this yet. The debugger is the hard part, but there's an open source driver for ARM RDI commands for gdb, and a nice visual integration to make it easy to use. If I were doing a port of Eclipse I'd look at this ARM oriented solution to act as a starting point. RDI commands are just debugging API commands provided by Windows DLLs that communicate with the JTAG port (basically similar to a BDM port, but it's more complicated because the ARM EmbeddedICE module is harder to work with). This is the only work needed to make the hc12 port - just implement the RDI style commands for BDM devices. You'd only need a subset to make it work reasonably well. There is no standard Windows/linux API for debuggers that work with BDM devices yet (nothing like RDI; note that RDI is a proprietary standard), but we should create an open standard and work towards interoperability for various open source tools. Eric

witam Michal czy moglbys mi wyslac swoj programator do hc 12 ?? ja urzywam tylko do programowania eeprom czy potrzebny jest jakis specjalny interfejs ?? jak bys ml podaj mi sw nr telefonu bo chcialbym z toba porozmawiac pozdrawiam radek ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michal Konieczny" <mk@mk@....> To: <68HC12@68HC...> Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [68HC12] Re: hc12mem v1.1 > > I've already got C# code for the serial monitor but I need to polish > > it a bit more. I want to establish an open standard for low-level > > drivers so people can plug different drivers into different IDEs. My > > first release will be within 2 months, I hope. > > > > I think 2006 will see some major developments in free tools for the > > hc12 family. I am expecting someone to provide Eclipse support (which > > uses Java) for this platform (I don't know who, but it's inevitable), > > and I'll be approaching this arena from the .NET side. > > Great effort ! > But all this .NET is targeting mainly windows, and this leaves all free > operating systems somewhat in a shadow, again and again. > As an additional note, there're two types of programmers: ones that use > flashy IDEs, with all these wizards, project managers, auto-this, > automagic-that, sometimes more often using mouse than typing on the > keyboard. > And there're "old school" programmers, that use emacs or some other > "just editor" of choice, Makefiles and command line tools, and consider > such environment as homeland. Don't forget about us :) > > Back to the matter - I'm slowly approaching mentally making my program > some kind of a "plugin" for gdb, that will enable adding support for > more target connections (especially various bdm pods) much more easily > than putting support code directly into main gdb source tree - to do it > externally to gdb. I see that we have many common things to think about. > If you could describe me the architecture of your project (I'm real > stranger to all these IDEs), especially what components are involved and > how it all works, maybe we can share some work. But for this, I think we > can move off this list, to private email. > > Best regards, > > -- > Michal Konieczny > mk@mk@.... > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > >

--- In 68HC12@68HC..., "Eric Engler" <englere.geo@y...> wrote: > > --- In 68HC12@68HC..., "Jefferson Smith" <imajeff84663@y...> > > > Eclipse... that's the effor to cover that end, except I guess Java > > itself might never be really Open Source. > > There are many open source implementations of the Java compiler (Jikes > is the best known) and the JVM, but Sun won't allow any commercial > competition. Sun almost made Java an open standard, but they changed > their mind and didn't do it. > > It's my understanding that Sun allows open source implementations that > have a licensing model that forbids commercial sales. I've seen some worrying about whether Sun will fight open source. But to me the problem is proving (or certifying) the Java compatibility. What I've tried in the past didn't come close to the same. Since being the same is the whole purpose of Java, it must be exactly the same (execution results, anyway).

Comments below. On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 03:43 +0000, Eric Engler wrote: > --- In 68HC12@68HC..., "Jefferson Smith" <imajeff84663@y...> > > > Eclipse... that's the effor to cover that end, except I guess Java > > itself might never be really Open Source. We can get by with Java not being open source. Fedora has a version as does IBM. > There are many open source implementations of the Java compiler (Jikes > is the best known) and the JVM, but Sun won't allow any commercial > competition. Sun almost made Java an open standard, but they changed > their mind and didn't do it. > > It's my understanding that Sun allows open source implementations that > have a licensing model that forbids commercial sales. ???? In order for Java to be something, Sun needs it to run on other platforms and for that to happen, it must share. > Microsoft's C# language and their CLR are open standards, so anyone > can give away their own tools, or sell them with no royalties to > Microsoft. C# is an attempt by Microsoft to lock people in to Microsoft products. C# isn't an open standard. Ask people on the mono team. -- Kim Lux, Diesel Research Inc.

--- In 68HC12@68HC..., "Jefferson Smith" <imajeff84663@y...> > Eclipse... that's the effor to cover that end, except I guess Java > itself might never be really Open Source. There are many open source implementations of the Java compiler (Jikes is the best known) and the JVM, but Sun won't allow any commercial competition. Sun almost made Java an open standard, but they changed their mind and didn't do it. It's my understanding that Sun allows open source implementations that have a licensing model that forbids commercial sales. Microsoft's C# language and their CLR are open standards, so anyone can give away their own tools, or sell them with no royalties to Microsoft.

--- In 68HC12@68HC..., "Eric Engler" <englere.geo@y...> wrote: > get there. There's a chance that others might "beat me to the punch" > by porting Eclipse to work with the HC11/HC12 family to support > embedded C, and that would be a great choice. I would not see a need > to compete with Eclipse if that were to happen. Any idea what part of HC11/HC12 programming is not supported by Eclipse/CDT already? I've been developing with it for a year with HC12 and it works great. Only problem is I hadn't got gdb working well enough so I can't use it for GUI debugging.

--- In 68HC12@68HC..., "Eric Engler" <englere.geo@y...> wrote: > Just this month Microsoft announced that its .NET 2.0 Express IDEs > will be free for one year. These are all based on Visual Studio and > they have all the best features of VS. They mostly lack the extensive > database integration needed in a corporate IT setting. But they do > work with databases, and SQL Express is one of the free offerings. "free for one year", interresting definition of the word free?

--- In 68HC12@68HC..., Michal Konieczny <mk@c...> wrote: > Great effort ! > But all this .NET is targeting mainly windows, and this leaves all free > operating systems somewhat in a shadow, again and again. > As an additional note, there're two types of programmers: ones that use > flashy IDEs, with all these wizards, project managers, auto-this, > automagic-that, sometimes more often using mouse than typing on the > keyboard. > And there're "old school" programmers, that use emacs or some other > "just editor" of choice, Makefiles and command line tools, and consider > such environment as homeland. Don't forget about us :) Eclipse... that's the effor to cover that end, except I guess Java itself might never be really Open Source.

--- In 68HC12@68HC..., "Jonathan Masters" <jon@j...> wrote: > It would be nice to know if it worked using MONO for LINUX - after all, > one of the aims of .NET was platform independence. It should work for mono on linux, and rotor on BSD (which may also work for Mac OSX). But like any "platform agnostic" code, it might need small tweaks. The only 100% platform neutral programs are ones that don't do much! Java and .NET are more portable than traditional C, but some tweaks are probably inevitable. The portability comes from the strong OOP libraries that abstract many of the low-level API differences. If the libraries are perfect, then no tweaks will be needed. But we don't live in a perfect world, of course! All C# programs can be compiled on Windows with great tools that are 100% free. Microsoft's best compilers and libraries have been free since 2002 (in the .NET SDK download), and these are the same full versions used by Visual Studio. These aren't limited in any way, you don't have to register with Microsoft, and they're not "trialware". Just this month Microsoft announced that its .NET 2.0 Express IDEs will be free for one year. These are all based on Visual Studio and they have all the best features of VS. They mostly lack the extensive database integration needed in a corporate IT setting. But they do work with databases, and SQL Express is one of the free offerings. SharpDevelop is an open source IDE for Windows. The mono port is called MonoDevelop. My editor code derives from SharpDevelop, so it will have some cool functionality (code folding is one of the coolest features that wasn't supported in my past IDEs). However, I'll create my own IDE that is simpler because my users prefer ease-of-use over extensive features, and it will be specifically designed for embedded targets. My users are students and hobbiests who want to become productive quickly without spending a lot of time learning how to use the tools. My current assembler IDE is about 5 times more popular than my C IDE (because of its use in colleges), so my first project under the new code base is a debugger for assembler programs. This will be called from AsmIDE at first, but later the entire assembler IDE will be re-implemented using the new C# code base. I have not yet decided on how to proceed on the gcc side of things so this will wait until I have a better vision of where to go and how to get there. There's a chance that others might "beat me to the punch" by porting Eclipse to work with the HC11/HC12 family to support embedded C, and that would be a great choice. I would not see a need to compete with Eclipse if that were to happen. Having said all this, my free time is limited and I won't have time to do the linux ports of my C# code by myself. I use Visual Studio on Windows because I'm most familiar with it. I'm hoping that others will assist in linux porting. Eric