It's true with that "great silicon support from the MSP430 group" remark.
I
should sell all those kits they send us :-)
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Paul Curtis wrote:
> As I said, TI are effectively operating a Scorched
Earth policy. They can
> certainly offset development cost of tools against silicon sales, and offer
> tools for free to large accounts.
>
> Quite how that leaves 3Ps, well, you can guess.
>
> However, we still receive excellent support from TI for all our MSP430
> needs, I have no complaint there.
> -- Paul.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: m... [mailto:m...] On
> > Behalf Of webmaster_pdx
> > Sent: 23 May 2011 3:41 PM
>
> > To: m...
> > Subject: [msp430] Re: re-run of "which compiler are you using?" poll
> >
> > I was at our local MSP430 days event run by arrow (I think), and there,
> the TI
> > reps were saying that they are investing heavily in CCS rev 5.0. I
> recently
> > bought the launchpad and decided to install CCS 5.0 (the default is 4.x,
> so you
> > have to jump through a few hoops), along with the new glade tool. They
> > seem to be quite good. TI barely even spoke about IAR, so to them, while
> > they had no tool of their own originally, they went with IAR, but now,
> they
> > are recommending CCS. 5.0 also will be current with the latest eclipse
> from
> > now on. 4.x is not.
> > This is worth taking into consideration. Obviously, if you've used
IAR
> from the
> > beginning, then it makes sense to continue to. In addition CCS supports
> 16K
> > of flash with the free version, while IAR supports only 4K with the free
> > version. Since the new G parts do have up to 16K on them, this makes CCS
> > the obvious choice.
> > The problem, I'm guessing is that some began with IAR and changing can
be
> a
> > bit of a pain later in the game.
> > Bottom line though, is that TI seem to be committed to CCS 5.0 now.
> > -D
> > --- In m..., "Nick Alexeev" wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey Paul,
> > >
> > > I was expecting that CCStudio would come first. Our predictions
didn't
> > seem to prove. IAR came first. At the same time, CCStudio isn't far
> behind
> > (by IDE measures). It's a lot cheaper than IAR too.
> > >
> > > I personally know 3 people who write firmware for MSP430. 1 uses IAR
> > (you know who you are), 2 use CCStudio, 1 is dual wielding.
> > >
> > > - Nick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In m..., "Paul Curtis" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > All right, the poll is up:
> > > > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/msp430/surveys?id044609
> > > >
> > > > Prediction: This will tell you most are using Code Composer from
> > > > TI's "scorched earth" approach to marketing CCS. :-)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
> > > > SolderCore arriving Summer 2011! http://www.soldercore.com
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
As I said, TI are effectively operating a Scorched Earth policy. They can
certainly offset development cost of tools against silicon sales, and offer
tools for free to large accounts.
Quite how that leaves 3Ps, well, you can guess.
However, we still receive excellent support from TI for all our MSP430
needs, I have no complaint there.
-- Paul.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: m... [mailto:m...] On
> Behalf Of webmaster_pdx
> Sent: 23 May 2011 3:41 PM
> To: m...
> Subject: [msp430] Re: re-run of "which compiler are you using?" poll
>
> I was at our local MSP430 days event run by arrow (I think), and there, the TI > reps were saying that they are investing heavily in
CCS rev 5.0. I recently > bought the launchpad and decided to install CCS 5.0
(the default is 4.x, so you > have to jump through a few hoops), along with the new
glade tool. They
> seem to be quite good. TI barely even spoke about IAR, so to them, while
> they had no tool of their own originally, they went with IAR, but now, they > are recommending CCS. 5.0 also will be current with
the latest eclipse from > now on. 4.x is not.
> This is worth taking into consideration. Obviously, if you've used IAR from the > beginning, then it makes sense to continue to. In
addition CCS supports 16K > of flash with the free version, while IAR supports
only 4K with the free
> version. Since the new G parts do have up to 16K on them, this makes CCS
> the obvious choice.
> The problem, I'm guessing is that some began with IAR and changing can
be a > bit of a pain later in the game.
> Bottom line though, is that TI seem to be committed to CCS 5.0 now.
> -D
> --- In m..., "Nick Alexeev" wrote:
> >
> > Hey Paul,
> >
> > I was expecting that CCStudio would come first. Our predictions
didn't
> seem to prove. IAR came first. At the same time, CCStudio isn't far behind > (by IDE measures). It's a lot cheaper than IAR
too.
> >
> > I personally know 3 people who write firmware for MSP430. 1 uses IAR
> (you know who you are), 2 use CCStudio, 1 is dual wielding.
> >
> > - Nick
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In m..., "Paul Curtis" wrote:
> > >
> > > > All right, the poll is up:
> > > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/msp430/surveys?id=3044609
> > >
> > > Prediction: This will tell you most are using Code Composer from
> > > TI's "scorched earth" approach to marketing CCS. :-)
> > >
> > > --
> > > Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
> > > SolderCore arriving Summer 2011! http://www.soldercore.com
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Reply by webmaster_pdx●May 23, 20112011-05-23
I was at our local MSP430 days event run by arrow (I think), and there, the TI
reps were saying that they are investing heavily in CCS rev 5.0. I recently
bought the launchpad and decided to install CCS 5.0 (the default is 4.x, so you
have to jump through a few hoops), along with the new glade tool. They seem to
be quite good. TI barely even spoke about IAR, so to them, while they had no
tool of their own originally, they went with IAR, but now, they are recommending
CCS. 5.0 also will be current with the latest eclipse from now on. 4.x is
not.
This is worth taking into consideration. Obviously, if you've used IAR from
the beginning, then it makes sense to continue to. In addition CCS supports 16K
of flash with the free version, while IAR supports only 4K with the free
version. Since the new G parts do have up to 16K on them, this makes CCS the
obvious choice.
The problem, I'm guessing is that some began with IAR and changing can be a
bit of a pain later in the game.
Bottom line though, is that TI seem to be committed to CCS 5.0 now.
-D
--- In m..., "Nick Alexeev" wrote: >
> Hey Paul,
>
> I was expecting that CCStudio would come first. Our predictions didn't
seem to prove. IAR came first. At the same time, CCStudio isn't far
behind (by IDE measures). It's a lot cheaper than IAR too.
>
> I personally know 3 people who write firmware for MSP430. 1 uses IAR (you
know who you are), 2 use CCStudio, 1 is dual wielding.
>
> - Nick
>
>
>
> --- In m..., "Paul Curtis" wrote:
> >
> > > All right, the poll is up:
> > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/msp430/surveys?id=3044609
> >
> > Prediction: This will tell you most are using Code Composer from
TI's
> > "scorched earth" approach to marketing CCS. :-)
> >
> > --
> > Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
> > SolderCore arriving Summer 2011! http://www.soldercore.com
>
Reply by Paul Curtis●May 23, 20112011-05-23
Hi,
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Paul Curtis
wrote:
>
> > Out of curiosity, why was it not an option? Why not even bother to
> look?
>
> Timing, mostly. GCC is my preferred platform, and I was expecting to
> simply use it, unaware that support for the latest chips was somewhat
> sketchy. The only reason I played with CCS and IAR at all was because
> I was unaware that an alpha version of Uniarch that supports the
> G2553's had just become available.
I can understand that if you're happy with GCC on other platforms then
staying with it is easy because of familiarity.
> In any case, at $150, even the personal option is too
much for me.
We sell plenty of Personal licenses at $150, which isn't that expensive.
> I really can't imagine what it would buy me.
Well, if you've never tried, you won't find out. ;-)
> If you had a version that was code-size and/or
optimizer limited
> and didn't try to install any licensing software on my system (as
> is the case with the restricted versions of CCS and IAR) I'd
> certainly give it a shot, though.
Our software doesn't install anything other than the IDE and tools. We
do
not make code-size limited nor dumbed-down software. We've been asked
to,
but there is no point and no driving business need to do so.
There is a class of user that will never need some of the items we offer,
and there's little point us catering for that class of customer because
we'll never snag them.
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Paul Curtis wrote:
> Out of curiosity, why was it not an option? Why not
even bother to look?
Timing, mostly. GCC is my preferred platform, and I was expecting to
simply use it, unaware that support for the latest chips was somewhat
sketchy. The only reason I played with CCS and IAR at all was because
I was unaware that an alpha version of Uniarch that supports the
G2553's had just become available.
In any case, at $150, even the personal option is too much for me. I
really can't imagine what it would buy me. If you had a version that
was code-size and/or optimizer limited and didn't try to install any
licensing software on my system (as is the case with the restricted
versions of CCS and IAR) I'd certainly give it a shot, though.
-p.
Reply by Paul Curtis●May 23, 20112011-05-23
Hi,
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Paul Curtis
wrote:
>
> >> I am just a hobbyist myself, and I use gcc, but not because of the
> >> cost issue. I use it because (1) I prefer command line compilers
> and
> >> (2) it is the only option for unix-based development.
> >
> > No, gcc is not the only option for Unix-based development.
> >
> > Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
>
> True, true. Although I investigated CCS and IAR, I did not bother to
> investigate CrossWorks, as even the $150 personal version was not an
> option for me.
Out of curiosity, why was it not an option? Why not even bother to look?
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Paul Curtis wrote:
>> I am just a hobbyist myself, and I use gcc, but not
because of the cost
>> issue. I use it because (1) I prefer command line compilers and
>> (2) it is the only option for unix-based development.
>
> No, gcc is not the only option for Unix-based development.
>
> Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd http://www.rowley.co.uk
True, true. Although I investigated CCS and IAR, I did not bother to
investigate CrossWorks, as even the $150 personal version was not an
option for me.
-p.
Reply by Paul Curtis●May 23, 20112011-05-23
Hi,
> I am just a hobbyist myself, and I use gcc, but not
because of the cost
> issue. I use it because (1) I prefer command line compilers and
> (2) it is the only option for unix-based development.
No, gcc is not the only option for Unix-based development.
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Nick Alexeev wrote:
> A person who uses (really uses) a full featured code
limited free version contributes to mind share as much as the one who uses a
paid full version.
I have no argument with that, per se, but I'm not sure how it is
relevant to the survey.
Another interesting list survey would be the breakdown of professional
vs. non-professional (hobbyist) developers.
Cost is not generally not going to be a factor in the selection of
development tools for the professional, but that is very much going to
be an issue for the hobbyist.
I am certain that a *lot* more hobbyists would be using gcc if it were
not for the free code-limited versions of CCS and IAR.
I am curious how many hobbyists actually purchase CCS/IAR once they
exceed the code limits for the free versions, or whether they switch
over to gcc.
I am just a hobbyist myself, and I use gcc, but not because of the
cost issue. I use it because (1) I prefer command line compilers and
(2) it is the only option for unix-based development.
-p.
>
> Another problem with this poll is that it may be skewed because this group may
be attracting users of some compilers more than other. For example, TI has
it's own forum and IAR doesn't. Things like that.
>
> We can set up a more sophisticated poll on SurveyMonkey (or such).
>
> - Nick
>
> --- In m..., Peter Johansson wrote:
>>
>> Indeed. In addition, everyone who voted for either CCS or IAR should
>> specify whether they are using the free (code limited version) or the
>> paid full version.
>>
>> -p.
>>
>> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Paul Curtis wrote:
>> > Perhaps things are skewed because some products are zero cost for
limited
>> > uses.
>> >
>> > Perhaps it would be fairer to break this into two polls:
>> >
>> > "What compiler do you use at work for commercial products"?
>> >
>> > "What compiler do you use at home for your hobby"?
>>
>
Reply by Paul Curtis●May 23, 20112011-05-23
With ~100 votes, it hardly seems worthwhile.
-- Paul.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: m... [mailto:m...] On
> Behalf Of Nick Alexeev
> Sent: 23 May 2011 8:26 AM
> To: m...
> Subject: [msp430] Re: re-run of "which compiler are you using?" poll
>
> A person who uses (really uses) a full featured code limited free version
> contributes to mind share as much as the one who uses a paid full version.
>
> Another problem with this poll is that it may be skewed because this group
> may be attracting users of some compilers more than other. For example, TI > has it's own forum and IAR doesn't. Things
like that.
>
> We can set up a more sophisticated poll on SurveyMonkey (or such).
>
> - Nick
>
> --- In m..., Peter Johansson
> wrote:
> >
> > Indeed. In addition, everyone who voted for either CCS or IAR should
> > specify whether they are using the free (code limited version) or the
> > paid full version.
> >
> > -p.
> >
> > On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Paul Curtis wrote:
> > > Perhaps things are skewed because some products are zero cost for
> > > limited uses.
> > >
> > > Perhaps it would be fairer to break this into two polls:
> > >
> > > "What compiler do you use at work for commercial products"?
> > >
> > > "What compiler do you use at home for your hobby"?
> >
>
