8051 C Compiler

cbarn24050@aol.com wrote:

> 
> Ian Bell wrote:
> There
>> will always be applications for which the 8051 is ideally suited,
> 
> I cant think of one, can you?

Yes.

> Its old,

It's mature

> slow,

Available in up to 100 MIPS versions

> limited instruction set,   

but perfectly aligned to its applications

> not well suited to HLLs

a distinct advantage in my book but not true anyway.

> and it's expensive. 

No it isn't.

>> especially with its highly integrated peripherals.
> 
> Most variants dont have anything exceptional.
> 

With over 400 variants to choose from you can nearly always find the exact
peripheral set required.

IAn

Op Mon, 28 Aug 2006 21:10:06 +0200 schreef Ian Bell  
<ruffrecords@yahoo.co.uk>:
> Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:
>> Op Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:19:35 +0200 schreef Ian Bell
>> <ruffrecords@yahoo.co.uk>:
>>> I think there are very few reasons to persuade 8051 users to us ARM.
>>> There will always be applications for which the 8051 is ideally suited,
>>> especially with its highly integrated peripherals. The 8051 is an order
>>> of magnitude simpler than the ARM such that getting your head around  
>>> the entire device and its instruction set is still possible and  
>>> beneficial.
>>
>> For many applications, complexity tends to increase over time, creating  
>> a need for faster processors.
>
> Indeed you might think so. In many cases there are better approaches. It  
> is all to easy to put in a faster processor or use bank switching and  
> add some ROM/Flash. However this means all the complexity is  
> concentrated in one CPU and piece of code. From the point of view of  
> managing increased complexity, ensuring reliability, simplifying  
> debugging and system integration it is
> often better to consider a multi-processor approach.

 From the point of view of simple economics it is often worth it to save  
the extra component and introduce an RTOS and a good debugger in such a  
design.

>> [...] with a good IDE and
>> C-compiler you don't need to get your head around the entire device and
>> its instruction set; at least not all of the developers in a group.
>
> Therein lies the road to ruin.

You're right.  We're doomed anyway.  So let's all micro-manage and  
bit-fiddle our way into bankruptcy.


-- 
Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma:  
http://www.opera.com/mail/

In article <1156827197.365530.146920@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, 
cbarn24050@aol.com writes
>
>Chris Hills wrote:
>>
>> >  That's a very different number - and I believe in many
>> >cases, the number is so low as to be hardly worth considering.
>>
>> No so. In some markets piracy is 90% of the market. There are some areas
>> where if there are several SW engineers on a team you only get to sell
>> one compiler for any given target....
>>
>
>It's very probable that they only need 1 compiler

Only need one copy with several engineers developing Sw concurrently?

>> I have seen companies in Europe who try to get out of buying compilers.
>> USB dongles and parallel port dongles on hubs/switches are not uncommon.
>
>Done for convienence mostly.

Mostly done so they don't have to by additional seats.


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Chris Hills wrote:
> >> No so. In some markets piracy is 90% of the market. There are some areas
> >> where if there are several SW engineers on a team you only get to sell
> >> one compiler for any given target....
> >>
> >
> >It's very probable that they only need 1 compiler
>
> Only need one copy with several engineers developing Sw concurrently?

I guess it does depend on just how big the team is but you dont develop
software on a compiler, you compile what you have written.
>
> >> I have seen companies in Europe who try to get out of buying compilers.
> >> USB dongles and parallel port dongles on hubs/switches are not uncommon.
> >
> >Done for convienence mostly.
>
> Mostly done so they don't have to by additional seats.

It wouldnt make sence to be moving a dongle from one machine to the
next. Presumably only one person can use the software at any time.

cbarn24050@aol.com wrote:
> Chris Hills wrote:
> > >> No so. In some markets piracy is 90% of the market. There are some areas
> > >> where if there are several SW engineers on a team you only get to sell
> > >> one compiler for any given target....
> > >>
> > >
> > >It's very probable that they only need 1 compiler
> >
> > Only need one copy with several engineers developing Sw concurrently?
>
> I guess it does depend on just how big the team is but you dont develop
> software on a compiler, you compile what you have written.

Here we see another aspect of the problem.

Some see software like a compiler as analogous to a tool like a
screwdriver.  If one person isn't using it another can and perhaps at a
different location.  It's not particularly tied to a person or a
location.  Even with expensive tools like high speed oscilloscopes this
follows, it's laughable to think you would require permission from the
manufacturer for a second person to use the tool at another location.

Others see software like a compiler as more similar to a temporary
tatoo.  One person, one location and you have to keep refreshing it if
you want to continue using it.

Robert

Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:

> Op Mon, 28 Aug 2006 21:10:06 +0200 schreef Ian Bell
> <ruffrecords@yahoo.co.uk>:
>> Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:
>>> Op Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:19:35 +0200 schreef Ian Bell
>>> <ruffrecords@yahoo.co.uk>:
>>>> I think there are very few reasons to persuade 8051 users to us ARM.
>>>> There will always be applications for which the 8051 is ideally suited,
>>>> especially with its highly integrated peripherals. The 8051 is an order
>>>> of magnitude simpler than the ARM such that getting your head around
>>>> the entire device and its instruction set is still possible and
>>>> beneficial.
>>>
>>> For many applications, complexity tends to increase over time, creating
>>> a need for faster processors.
>>
>> Indeed you might think so. In many cases there are better approaches. It
>> is all to easy to put in a faster processor or use bank switching and
>> add some ROM/Flash. However this means all the complexity is
>> concentrated in one CPU and piece of code. From the point of view of
>> managing increased complexity, ensuring reliability, simplifying
>> debugging and system integration it is
>> often better to consider a multi-processor approach.
> 
>  From the point of view of simple economics it is often worth it to save
> the extra component and introduce an RTOS and a good debugger in such a
> design.
> 


This is seriously wrong especially where no RTOS was in use before - it is
just asking for a whole bunch of quite unnecessary headaches, heartaches,
late nights and seriously dodgy products.

Ian

Chris Hills wrote:

> In article <1156827197.365530.146920@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> cbarn24050@aol.com writes
>>
>>Chris Hills wrote:
>>>
>>> >  That's a very different number - and I believe in many
>>> >cases, the number is so low as to be hardly worth considering.
>>>
>>> No so. In some markets piracy is 90% of the market. There are some areas
>>> where if there are several SW engineers on a team you only get to sell
>>> one compiler for any given target....
>>>
>>
>>It's very probable that they only need 1 compiler
> 
> Only need one copy with several engineers developing Sw concurrently?
> 


Indeed, with networking on Windose machines finally catching up with what
Unix has had for decades, engineers can develop code on their own machine
using whatever editor they like then compile it using the SINGLE compiler
on a shared machine. Old hat old boy.

Ian

In article <44f4a751.0@entanet>, Ian Bell <ruffrecords@yahoo.co.uk> 
writes
>Chris Hills wrote:
>
>> In article <1156827197.365530.146920@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
>> cbarn24050@aol.com writes
>>>
>>>Chris Hills wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >  That's a very different number - and I believe in many
>>>> >cases, the number is so low as to be hardly worth considering.
>>>>
>>>> No so. In some markets piracy is 90% of the market. There are some areas
>>>> where if there are several SW engineers on a team you only get to sell
>>>> one compiler for any given target....
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's very probable that they only need 1 compiler
>>
>> Only need one copy with several engineers developing Sw concurrently?
>>
>
>
>Indeed, with networking on Windose machines finally catching up with what
>Unix has had for decades, engineers can develop code on their own machine
>using whatever editor they like then compile it using the SINGLE compiler
>on a shared machine. Old hat old boy.
>
>Ian

So why don't they buy a floating license?   They are available it is 
because there is more than one engineer working at once.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

cbarn24050@aol.com wrote:

> Chris Hills wrote:
> 
>>>>I have seen companies in Europe who try to get out of buying compilers.
>>>>USB dongles and parallel port dongles on hubs/switches are not uncommon.
>>>
>>>Done for convienence mostly.
>>
>>Mostly done so they don't have to by additional seats.
> 
> 
> It wouldnt make sence to be moving a dongle from one machine to the
> next. Presumably only one person can use the software at any time.

This does raise an interesting point, wrt compilers.
( more so than Debug or Simulators )

The compile times for uC these days are extremely fast, so only a tiny 
fraction of any engineers time is spent actually compiling, and they 
could certainly wait for another batch-compile to complete anyway.

The support cost for a compiler is different, it does increase
with the number of users, and number of design variant instances.

So, that looks like a model is needed that reflects the support cost ?

( see also Walter's comment elsewhere in this thread, about 
emulator-tagged compiler sales, and their lower support costs )

-jg

Jim Granville wrote:

> David Brown wrote:
>> I feel I'm going round in circles, but I am curious to know if there 
>> are any reasonable estimates of the problems and loses from illegal 
>> copies of development tools.  Random quotes of 90% illegal copying in 
>> some markets are useless, even if "some markets" refers to large 
>> potential markets.  Are there any realistic numbers?  Or is real 
>> information so difficult to come by that this is simply a guessing game?
> 
>  One company that looks to be actually testing this,
> is Borlands spinoff :
> 
> http://www.turboexplorer.com/
> 
>  Here, they offer what I'd call free and commercial versions,
> tho they seem a little unclear on where exactly that line falls
> themselves.
> 
>  To do seem to appreciate the marketing power, and educational penetration,
> of a free version.

and here in today's news, is an even more topical example :

  Zilog have just made ZDS II free-download:

http://www.eet.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=192500111

ZDS II includes a Microsoft Windows-based project environment, editor, 
project manager, C compiler, assembler, linker, librarian, simulator and 
debugger.

[not stated, but presumably this includes all their cores, & the new ZNEO ?]

-jg