The lady doth protest too much, methinks...

Anyway, to go back, somehwat, to the original post, the presentation on 
430 day was still using IAR, not CCE. Maybe not everybody is convinced 
of the robustness of the latter yet?

Michel

--- In msp430@msp4..., "Paul Curtis" <plc@r...> wrote:
> Hi Michel,
> 
> > So Edit Cresson was right, after all? ;-)
> 
> I'm sure Edith has a lot more to worry about than us Brits batting for
> the other side.  On reflection, perhaps because we can't play cricket
> well we night as well bat for the other side and have some fun!
> 
> Besides, who says just because I might like to go Rocky Horror once 
in a
> while that I *do* bat for the other side?  My
missus and the four kids
> would be dumbfounded (he said in his most macho voice)! ;-)
> 
> --
> Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd  http://www.rowley.co.uk
> CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and (soon) MAXQ processors

Hi Michel, 

> The lady doth protest too much, methinks...
> 
> Anyway, to go back, somehwat, to the original post, the 
> presentation on 430 day was still using IAR, not CCE. Maybe 
> not everybody is convinced of the robustness of the latter yet?

Well, I was told they planned to use CCE at the last ATC but didn't.
I've no handle on whether it's stable ot not because I can't get
it to
work on my PC.  Perhaps this is because it's so clogged with other
embedded development products.

--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd  http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and (soon) MAXQ processors

So Edit Cresson was right, after all? ;-)

Michel

--- In msp430@msp4..., "Paul Curtis" <plc@r...> wrote:
> Hi Darren, 
> 
> > hand-bags at 10 paces.. now now ladies
> 
> Yeah, I know.  But them, I'm comfortable in my 10" heels and
fishnets 
on
> my days off... ;-)
> 
> --
> Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd  http://www.rowley.co.uk
> CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and (soon) MAXQ processors

Hi Michel,

> So Edit Cresson was right, after all? ;-)

I'm sure Edith has a lot more to worry about than us Brits batting for
the other side.  On reflection, perhaps because we can't play cricket
well we night as well bat for the other side and have some fun!

Besides, who says just because I might like to go Rocky Horror once in a
while that I *do* bat for the other side?  My missus and the four kids
would be dumbfounded (he said in his most macho voice)! ;-)

--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd  http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and (soon) MAXQ processors

Obviously you went hungry that day, assuming you're on a staple diet.

Al

Darren Logan wrote:

>the uvver day, i went to get two packs ov staples
out the stationary cubberd, but there was only 1.... what a fookin' day
that woz
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: msp430@msp4... [mailto:msp430@msp4...]On Behalf Of microbit
>Sent: 18 April 2005 10:35
>To: msp430@msp4...
>Subject: Re: [msp430] Real world test results Re: Code Composer C++
>
>
>Hi Al, John and (inferred) Paul,
>
>  
>
>>Maybe unbalanced, certainly opinionated, after all without an opinion 
>>why bother posting. And I fail to see what point you actually got to. 
>>Look over the history of posts in this group and you will see that your 
>>100% C-Spy reliability, the main thing I disputed, does not match the 
>>findings of a lot of members here, therefore your testing was 
>>inadequate. If that test was inadequate, and failed to show up C-Spys 
>>shortcomings (and everything has them, making any 100% result 
>>suspicious) and it was the same test applied to your other
'facts' then 
>>they too must be suspect. Yes it was opinionated. My opinion is that you

>>are trying to pass off personal bias as hard fact. The evidence supports

>>it. Motive? who knows? Perhaps you got caught with your knickers down 
>>making a few wrong statements and, rather than backing off gracefully, 
>>got embroiled in an indefensible position.
>>    
>>
>
>My opinion :
>
>I don't really see what point (if any) John has conveyed.
>The whole debate is convoluted at the least.
>
>My view point :
>
>John states he has hard facts.
>Well, I don't think so !
>
>1)    C-spy comes out as 100% reliable
>       Have you ever __tried__ to design a reasonable project on C-spy.
>       It is a guaranteed one-way ticket to a looney bin as far as I'm
concerned.
>
>2)    John states as a prelude to his "facts" :
>       " Here are some results using the same PC and same MSP430 FET on
a small MSP430 with a small amount of code "
>       .... and for his "results" he's referring to a
CrossConnect, despite stating all tests used a FET.
>       John, do you even know what a CrossConnect is ???
>
>Anyway, I don't want to and don't have to immerse any further, but
this whole bunch of bullshit seems
>biased to buggary......
>
>-- Kris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>.
>
>
>
>
>
>  _____  
>
>> . 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>.
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>

> Darren, 
> 
> > the uvver day, i went to get two packs ov staples out the 
> > stationary cubberd, but there was only 1.... what a fookin' 
> > day that woz
> 
> Have you ever considered a change in career to, say, comedy?  I'm sure
> one of those late night shows on would suit you down to the ground.  :-)

Sounds good to me too.
Especially since the few that watch it will be - thank God - asleep.

-- Kris

Hey Darren,

Do you have a speach impediment ? :-)



> the uvver day, i went to get two packs ov staples
out the stationary
cubberd, but there was only 1.... what a fookin' day that woz

the uvver day, i went to get two packs ov staples out the stationary
cubberd, but there was only 1.... what a fookin' day that woz

-----Original Message-----
From: msp430@msp4... [mailto:msp430@msp4...]On Behalf Of microbit
Sent: 18 April 2005 10:35
To: msp430@msp4...
Subject: Re: [msp430] Real world test results Re: Code Composer C++


Hi Al, John and (inferred) Paul,

> Maybe unbalanced, certainly opinionated, after all
without an opinion 
> why bother posting. And I fail to see what point you actually got to. 
> Look over the history of posts in this group and you will see that your 
> 100% C-Spy reliability, the main thing I disputed, does not match the 
> findings of a lot of members here, therefore your testing was 
> inadequate. If that test was inadequate, and failed to show up C-Spys 
> shortcomings (and everything has them, making any 100% result 
> suspicious) and it was the same test applied to your other
'facts' then 
> they too must be suspect. Yes it was opinionated. My opinion is that you 
> are trying to pass off personal bias as hard fact. The evidence supports 
> it. Motive? who knows? Perhaps you got caught with your knickers down 
> making a few wrong statements and, rather than backing off gracefully, 
> got embroiled in an indefensible position.

My opinion :

I don't really see what point (if any) John has conveyed.
The whole debate is convoluted at the least.

My view point :

John states he has hard facts.
Well, I don't think so !

1)    C-spy comes out as 100% reliable
       Have you ever __tried__ to design a reasonable project on C-spy.
       It is a guaranteed one-way ticket to a looney bin as far as I'm
concerned.

2)    John states as a prelude to his "facts" :
       " Here are some results using the same PC and same MSP430 FET on a
small MSP430 with a small amount of code "
       .... and for his "results" he's referring to a
CrossConnect, despite stating all tests used a FET.
       John, do you even know what a CrossConnect is ???

Anyway, I don't want to and don't have to immerse any further, but
this whole bunch of bullshit seems
biased to buggary......

-- Kris








.





  _____  

> . 

Darren, 

> the uvver day, i went to get two packs ov staples
out the 
> stationary cubberd, but there was only 1.... what a fookin' 
> day that woz

Have you ever considered a change in career to, say, comedy?  I'm sure
one of those late night shows on would suit you down to the ground.  :-)

--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd  http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and (soon) MAXQ processors

Hi Al, John and (inferred) Paul,

> Maybe unbalanced, certainly opinionated, after all
without an opinion 
> why bother posting. And I fail to see what point you actually got to. 
> Look over the history of posts in this group and you will see that your 
> 100% C-Spy reliability, the main thing I disputed, does not match the 
> findings of a lot of members here, therefore your testing was 
> inadequate. If that test was inadequate, and failed to show up C-Spys 
> shortcomings (and everything has them, making any 100% result 
> suspicious) and it was the same test applied to your other
'facts' then 
> they too must be suspect. Yes it was opinionated. My opinion is that you 
> are trying to pass off personal bias as hard fact. The evidence supports 
> it. Motive? who knows? Perhaps you got caught with your knickers down 
> making a few wrong statements and, rather than backing off gracefully, 
> got embroiled in an indefensible position.

My opinion :

I don't really see what point (if any) John has conveyed.
The whole debate is convoluted at the least.

My view point :

John states he has hard facts.
Well, I don't think so !

1)    C-spy comes out as 100% reliable
       Have you ever __tried__ to design a reasonable project on C-spy.
       It is a guaranteed one-way ticket to a looney bin as far as I'm
concerned.

2)    John states as a prelude to his "facts" :
       " Here are some results using the same PC and same MSP430 FET on a
small MSP430 with a small amount of code "
       .... and for his "results" he's referring to a
CrossConnect, despite stating all tests used a FET.
       John, do you even know what a CrossConnect is ???

Anyway, I don't want to and don't have to immerse any further, but
this whole bunch of bullshit seems
biased to buggary......

-- Kris