The Rabbits

Are the Rabbits (Rabbit 2000 / 3000 / 3000A / 4000 / 5000 / 6000) still
common in embedded systems? Do you happen to know if they tend to be
chosen for new projects? If yes, which of the Rabbits are the most popular?

Which development tools other than Dynamic C are there?

Philipp

On Oct 6, 4:49=A0pm, Philipp Klaus Krause <p...@spth.de> wrote:
> Are the Rabbits (Rabbit 2000 / 3000 / 3000A / 4000 / 5000 / 6000) still
> common in embedded systems? Do you happen to know if they tend to be
> chosen for new projects? If yes, which of the Rabbits are the most popula=
r?
>
> Which development tools other than Dynamic C are there?
>
> Philipp

I'll let someone else answer for your first questions, as I don't know
how much it is used right now.

But concerning the tools, I used Softools for the development on
Rabbit 3000.  I worked well for me.

S=E9bastien

On 06-10-2011 21:49, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
> Are the Rabbits (Rabbit 2000 / 3000 / 3000A / 4000 / 5000 / 6000) still
> common in embedded systems? Do you happen to know if they tend to be
> chosen for new projects? If yes, which of the Rabbits are the most popular?
>
> Which development tools other than Dynamic C are there?
>
> Philipp
Using a lot of RCM3309 modules at the moment. Considering using Net 
Burner for future projects. We use UC/OSII and the fact that NB supports 
this is very handy.

Just use Dynamic C. Looked at SoftTools compiler. Looks good but never 
managed to push through the change for it.

Pulls up chair & opens pop corn......

I have no idea how much they are used in real projects.  I have always had =
a bit of a downer on them because of the non standard Dynamic C (well even =
more non standard than all the other flavours of embedded C that I have use=
d). =20

I was once asked to look at porting a rather badly written application to a=
 new processor.  The combination of the poorly written software (one file o=
ver 250000 lines long with 10 comments) and the non standard language meant=
 that we just threw it away and started again.

With all of the other processor architectures out there now, IMHO there are=
 many better than the Rabbit.

On 10/7/2011 7:00 AM, ian.okey@gmail.com wrote:
> With all of the other processor architectures out there now,
> IMHO there are many better than the Rabbit.

+42

Unless, of course, you're developing a dead-end product that
you'll never need to port to a new platform, etc. (i.e.,
where *this* choice has no long term consequences).

Ask yourself why you *aren't* looking at, e.g., an ARM-based
solution.  At least the code you write will be portable at the
*source* level (even if the hardware complement differs)

Am 07.10.2011 20:18, schrieb Don Y:
> On 10/7/2011 7:00 AM, ian.okey@gmail.com wrote:
>> With all of the other processor architectures out there now,
>> IMHO there are many better than the Rabbit.
> 
> +42
> 
> Unless, of course, you're developing a dead-end product that
> you'll never need to port to a new platform, etc. (i.e.,
> where *this* choice has no long term consequences).
> 
> Ask yourself why you *aren't* looking at, e.g., an ARM-based
> solution.  At least the code you write will be portable at the
> *source* level (even if the hardware complement differs)

But isn't source code portability just a tools issue that will go away
when a standard-compliant C compiler for the Rabbit becomes available?

Philipp

Hi Philipp,

On 10/7/2011 11:48 AM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
> Am 07.10.2011 20:18, schrieb Don Y:
>> On 10/7/2011 7:00 AM, ian.okey@gmail.com wrote:
>>> With all of the other processor architectures out there now,
>>> IMHO there are many better than the Rabbit.
>>
>> +42
>>
>> Unless, of course, you're developing a dead-end product that
>> you'll never need to port to a new platform, etc. (i.e.,
>> where *this* choice has no long term consequences).
>>
>> Ask yourself why you *aren't* looking at, e.g., an ARM-based
>> solution.  At least the code you write will be portable at the
>> *source* level (even if the hardware complement differs)
>
> But isn't source code portability just a tools issue that will go away
> when a standard-compliant C compiler for the Rabbit becomes available?

(some of) Dynamic C's features aren't compliant.  So, if you *use*
those features, your code won't be portable.  IME, the effort required
to remove non-portable features from an implementation is often
considerable and error-prone.  The more "involved" the features
become with the operation of the code itself, the greater the
cost/risk.

That's not to say it isn't "do-able"... just another cost
that you have to consider.  But, keep in mind, when it comes to
the reuse issues that are implicit in the thinking behind
"Model 2" of a product, a big issue is the assumption/belief
that there will be extra development economies realized because
"We can *just* reuse most of the code from Model 1".

I try to religiously avoid compiler-specific "extensions" in
my sources.  Any "special tweeks" are moved into header files
or "accessory functions" that provide interfaces, e.g., between
assembly language portions of the system and HLL portions
(i.e., *knowing* that these will have to be rewritten for a
new compiler... but *only* these!)

On Oct 7, 9:49=A0am, Philipp Klaus Krause <p...@spth.de> wrote:
> Are the Rabbits (Rabbit 2000 / 3000 / 3000A / 4000 / 5000 / 6000) still
> common in embedded systems? Do you happen to know if they tend to be
> chosen for new projects? If yes, which of the Rabbits are the most popula=
r?

A quick web scan finds they have a lot of modules, but Distributor
stocking of the chips thins out.
The R4000 shows just 40 in stock, and no sign of the R5000 or R6000.
The R2/3000 look popular (1000+ in stock at Mouser)

Usually devices like this self-selects, mainly on peripherals not
core.
At one time, if you needed a LOT of serial ports, Rabbit made sense.
Or, if you wanted modules, ready to go, and were not price-
sensitive...

What peripheral features are there that have you looking at Rabbit ?

Am 07.10.2011 22:28, schrieb Jim Granville:

> 
> What peripheral features are there that have you looking at Rabbit ?

I'm not looking at the Rabbit for a concrete project. I'm a sdcc
developer wondering how many users (and what type and which features
they most care about) there would be for our Rabbit 2000/3000 backend,
that will probably be ready for the 3.1.0 release.

Philipp

On 10/8/2011 8:38 AM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
> Am 07.10.2011 22:28, schrieb Jim Granville:
>
>>
>> What peripheral features are there that have you looking at Rabbit ?
>
> I'm not looking at the Rabbit for a concrete project. I'm a sdcc
> developer

How about concentrating on newer and more classy processors.

Z80 is dead, dead, dead.

Yes, and I am sure you can create a compiler for the 8051 family as well.

Dead, dead, dead



  wondering how many users (and what type and which features
> they most care about) there would be for our Rabbit 2000/3000 backend,
> that will probably be ready for the 3.1.0 release.
>
> Philipp