Opinions on Rowley CrossWorks for ARM

Hi Richard,

I did't want to be rude, but I really think you should improve on the 
webpage. As a matter of fact, the FIRST impresison anyone gets from your 
company nowadays is quite likely through visiting your webpage.Of course 
your website's quality has nothing to do with with the quality of your 
products (you can have a great wonderful page while your products are 
just a p.o.s. or vice versa), however when visiting a website you don't 
conciously *think* along those lines, but it's rather like your great, 
massively parallel superocmputer in your head will automatically 
generate all the prejudices you need in the background :)
What really puts me off, and doesn't really qualify as "professional" 
(actually hard to define) in my book is on the first page, the first 
thing I've to read:
"Lastly, proof that we must be doing a good job: Our competitors are 
spreading FUD about us with manipulated "benchmarks" and "feature 
comparisons." Perhaps the last gasp of the dinosaurs? "
Woohoo that's quite sth. to write on your frontpage. It's not about the 
content in itself, but much more about the wording. The akronym "FUD" 
might come in handy in a Linux/Microsoft flamefest, but putting it on 
the frontpage of your company's website? The same goes for your 
response. It's ok to discuss the benchmark in question from your point 
of view, but again I think the form is quite suboptimal.
I mean, compare this with IAR's comparison here: 
http://www.iar.se/index.php?show=43943_ENG&&page_anchor=http://www.iar.se/p43943/p43943_eng.php
It's not comprehensive or perhaps even fair by any means, but the style 
is much more factual. Some serious looking diagrams showing that IAR 
just rocks. If this were a presentation on your website, I would 
probably read something like:
<exaggerated>
Whoa, and look what a piece o' sh** this so called professional compiler 
Keil is, even worse than free hobbyist GCC"
</exaggerated>.
All that aside, personally I might decide to buy software from you. If I 
   post/search in groups, and there are people praising how great your 
software really is I'd buy it regardless of your webdesign. However I am 
absolutely sure that in this case, where I just have to suggest software 
to my bosses, they'd never buy a single license from you after visiting 
your page. I could give long talks, presentations or dance 
choreographies just to show them how great your software is. They would 
just say "No,no,no we need sth. professional".
That being said, if noone told you in the last 12+ years, I might just 
be overly sensitive. However, I am quite sure that there were some 
people who felt the same as I do, just they didn't tell you but instead 
went on and bought from the competition.
By no means I intend to offend you with this post (it is not so easy for 
me to express my intentions up the point since english is not my native 
language). I just want to explain how it came to that rather brusque 
phrasing in my last post.

Regards

Sebastian


Richard schrieb:
> Sebastian Schildt wrote:
>> => ImageCraft
>> This worked pretty good, but as far as I could see there's no debugger 
>> included, which is a minus. Worse, the website, well, is very 
>> unprofessional and looks and reads as if it was created by a bunch of 
>> immature teenagers. I think I'll stay away from this. (I looked at 
>> http://www.imagecraft.com/. First I thought it is a fake or something 
>> but I couldn't find another page)
>>
> 
> Wow. That hurts a little. No one quite said that in the 12+ years we 
> have been in business. We tend to look at it as friendly neighbor mom 
> and pop compiler company. We offer features that we deem are good and 
> provide excellent support. We even offer things that are "hard to do," 
> like the first whole program code compression commercial embedded C 
> compiler and now global optimizations. We have 10,000+ of satisified 
> customers across multiple CPU families. We are one of the few remaining 
> compiler companies in US, so I guess we are doing OK.

"Sebastian Schildt" <jisinews@arcor.de> wrote in message 
news:4549f1ee$0$5726$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
> Hi Richard,
>
> I did't want to be rude, but I really think you should improve on the 
> webpage. As a matter of fact, the FIRST impresison anyone gets from 
> your company nowadays is quite likely through visiting your webpage.Of 
> course your website's quality has nothing to do with with the quality 
> of your products

I've just had a glance myself and I'm forced to agree with Sebastian. 
Now, I quite like it and it has a nice ma and pa feel about it and some 
entertaining irreverence but, from management's point of view it is not 
consistent with similar sites and would make them very uneasy. I also 
notice that the news page has been under construction since 2002. Yikes! 
You mean there has been no news in 4 years?

In my highly humble opinion I would have a bit more of a generic off the 
shelf products/support/contact/press style of menu for appeasing the 
managers and then have this friendly style of site within it in a 
developers area where the lighter tone will be appreciated and 
management won't go.

However, I'm on shakey ground because my lots' website is dreadful. I 
can't complain too loudly though in case it turns out that it is my job 
to update it! 

"Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message 
news:1UeXJWNowQSFFAJM@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In article <newscache$lxp18j$pg2$1@news.sil.at>, Christian Walter 
> <wolti@sil.at> writes
>> * They use the GNU C/C++ compiler tools which are somewhat "industry
>>   standard" tools. Specially the good integration for inline assembler
>>   in GCC is a big plus for embedded systems if you are doing low level
>>   stuff.
>
> Hardly I would not recommend GCC for embedded use.

That's because you sell "Industry Standard" compilers.  What does that mean? 
There is no qualification here.  How do you quantify "Industry Standard". 
If it's "as used by Industry At Large" then you are surely wrong.

And how come so all of our customers are using it for embedded use?  I mean, 
it's not like we hide the fact we bundle GCC for ARM.  They're not duped 
into believing it's our own compiler (but MSP430, AVR, and MAXQ is another 
matter, those are our own).  We also have the requisite rollcall of big 
names using our software in preference to other offerings, it's not like we 
go hungry at the end of the month.

Gee, how many commodity routers and wireless boxes have embedded Linux 
inside them compiled with GCC?  All those ARM and MIPS processors running on 
ropey old GNU and Linux software, my goodness, must be a nightmare!  I 
suppose you ripped out your router's firmware and replaced it with a 
homegrown effort compiled with the Greenhills compiler to feel safer?

Don't ever use a TomTom GO to figure out where your next sales meeting is 
because, shock horror, it has Linux inside it!  Don't use that Qtopia 
Greenphone!  And don't use a Zaurus or your world will fall apart.

Get a real-world perspective.  GCC is used a lot in the embedded world and 
is just as much "Industry Standard(tm)" as IAR or Keil/ADS.  It surely has a 
wider audience and user base.

>> * Works on Linux
> And this is an advantage?
>
> 90% of embedded systems don't use an OS let alone Linux.

He's talking about the host platform, not the target platform.  We support 
Linux as a Host OS, not a target OS.  Your comment has no relevance other 
than to show you are not familiar with our products.

I would conjecture you advocate Keil and IAR only because you are a reseller 
of those products.  :-)

--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd.

Chris Hills wrote:
> In article <newscache$lxp18j$pg2$1@news.sil.at>, Christian Walter 
> <wolti@sil.at> writes
>> Sebastian Schildt wrote:
>>> Hello group,
>>>  I'd like to hear some opinions regarding the Rowley CrossWorks for 
>>> ARM  toolchain. I know, this is a somewhat broad request, so I'll try 
>>> clarify things a bit more:
>>>  I am in the process of evaluating ARM toolchains which are to be 
>>> used in  university classes/projects.
>>
>> Hallo,
>>
>> I have worked with Keil, GCC + GDB/Insight and Rowley Crossworks for 
>> ARM and have to say that I liked their toolchain best. In my opinion 
>> one of the strongest points for Rowley Crossworks are:
>>
>> * They support the ARM Wiggler Interfaces which is very cheap and it
>>   works excellent (Compared to using GDB/INSIGHT with ocddaemon or
>>   openocd). This might be interesting because cost is usually an
>>   issue for university classes.
> 
> There is inexpensive and there is cheap....  You do not want to cut 
> things too find. Industry stopped using wigglers some time back.
> 
> In Industry time is money. So the cheapest option for hobby use is not 
> the same as the best option for industry.
> 
>> * They use the GNU C/C++ compiler tools which are somewhat "industry
>>   standard" tools. Specially the good integration for inline assembler
>>   in GCC is a big plus for embedded systems if you are doing low level
>>   stuff.
> 
> Hardly I would not recommend GCC for embedded use.
> 

I guess Altera and Xilinx, who spend vast amounts of time and money on 
development of their software tools (probably comparable to what they 
spend on development of their devices) must be targeting their soft 
processors for use in desktops or servers.  And companies like Microchip 
and Axis and all the other microcontroller manufacturers who have made 
gcc backends for their devices are really targeting non-embedded usage.

It is certainly true that gcc is not the best choice in all cases, but 
only a fanatic would dismiss gcc outright, especially when backed by a 
commercial support contract.  And when looking at multiple target 
toolchains, I think the only competitor gcc might have in the number of 
targets supported is IAR - it is certainly as much of an industry 
standard as anything else.  Just to give you a hint - Intel and 
Metrowerks, to give two examples, specifically support gcc command line 
options and language extensions.

>> * Works on Linux
> And this is an advantage?
> 
> 90% of embedded systems don't use an OS let alone Linux.
> 

"Works on Linux" was referring to linux as the host, not as a target 
operating system.  But as a target operating system for ARM devices, 
linux (or ucLinux for devices without an MMU) is a very popular choice.

Hi Sebastian, thanks for your feedback. We are in fact in the process 
redesigning our order pages and other things so I will for sure discuss 
your input with our web people. One thing about the FUD though, we know 
of at least TWO instances where salespeople of certain companies (not 
Rowley :-) ) where they showed potential customers benchmark comparing 
their more mature products (yea, they got a headstart) with our BETA 
releases. I think that's trap of "larger" companies, they put up a 
"professional" site with "professional" salespeople but their tactics 
are not always up on up. I speak to some of them at trade shows from 
time to time, and by and large, they are nice people too. But I think 
that behind the doors, some of the sales may do things to get the sales. 
Our model is far simpler: fully functional demos, code size limited 
after 45 days. Knock yourself out playing. You have questions? We answer 
them. You want the latest update? Download the latest demo. Our overhead 
is far lower than other companies and I still do support although no 
longer doing the in depth coding like I used to. Buyers beware!

Sebastian Schildt wrote:

> Hi Richard,
> 
> I did't want to be rude, but I really think you should improve on the 
> webpage. As a matter of fact, the FIRST impresison anyone gets from your 
> company nowadays is quite likely through visiting your webpage.Of course 
> your website's quality has nothing to do with with the quality of your 
> products (you can have a great wonderful page while your products are 
> just a p.o.s. or vice versa), however when visiting a website you don't 
> conciously *think* along those lines, but it's rather like your great, 
> massively parallel superocmputer in your head will automatically 
> generate all the prejudices you need in the background :)
> What really puts me off, and doesn't really qualify as "professional" 
> (actually hard to define) in my book is on the first page, the first 
> thing I've to read:
> "Lastly, proof that we must be doing a good job: Our competitors are 
> spreading FUD about us with manipulated "benchmarks" and "feature 
> comparisons." Perhaps the last gasp of the dinosaurs? "
> Woohoo that's quite sth. to write on your frontpage. It's not about the 
> content in itself, but much more about the wording. The akronym "FUD" 
> might come in handy in a Linux/Microsoft flamefest, but putting it on 
> the frontpage of your company's website? The same goes for your 
> response. It's ok to discuss the benchmark in question from your point 
> of view, but again I think the form is quite suboptimal.
> I mean, compare this with IAR's comparison here: 
> http://www.iar.se/index.php?show=43943_ENG&&page_anchor=http://www.iar.se/p43943/p43943_eng.php 
> 
> It's not comprehensive or perhaps even fair by any means, but the style 
> is much more factual. Some serious looking diagrams showing that IAR 
> just rocks. If this were a presentation on your website, I would 
> probably read something like:
> <exaggerated>
> Whoa, and look what a piece o' sh** this so called professional compiler 
> Keil is, even worse than free hobbyist GCC"
> </exaggerated>.
> All that aside, personally I might decide to buy software from you. If I 
>   post/search in groups, and there are people praising how great your 
> software really is I'd buy it regardless of your webdesign. However I am 
> absolutely sure that in this case, where I just have to suggest software 
> to my bosses, they'd never buy a single license from you after visiting 
> your page. I could give long talks, presentations or dance 
> choreographies just to show them how great your software is. They would 
> just say "No,no,no we need sth. professional".
> That being said, if noone told you in the last 12+ years, I might just 
> be overly sensitive. However, I am quite sure that there were some 
> people who felt the same as I do, just they didn't tell you but instead 
> went on and bought from the competition.
> By no means I intend to offend you with this post (it is not so easy for 
> me to express my intentions up the point since english is not my native 
> language). I just want to explain how it came to that rather brusque 
> phrasing in my last post.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Sebastian
> 
> 
> Richard schrieb:
> 
>> Sebastian Schildt wrote:
>>
>>> => ImageCraft
>>> This worked pretty good, but as far as I could see there's no 
>>> debugger included, which is a minus. Worse, the website, well, is 
>>> very unprofessional and looks and reads as if it was created by a 
>>> bunch of immature teenagers. I think I'll stay away from this. (I 
>>> looked at http://www.imagecraft.com/. First I thought it is a fake or 
>>> something but I couldn't find another page)
>>>
>>
>> Wow. That hurts a little. No one quite said that in the 12+ years we 
>> have been in business. We tend to look at it as friendly neighbor mom 
>> and pop compiler company. We offer features that we deem are good and 
>> provide excellent support. We even offer things that are "hard to do," 
>> like the first whole program code compression commercial embedded C 
>> compiler and now global optimizations. We have 10,000+ of satisified 
>> customers across multiple CPU families. We are one of the few 
>> remaining compiler companies in US, so I guess we are doing OK.

In article <4549fa49$0$8717$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, Paul 
Curtis <plc@rowley.co.uk> writes
>"Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:1UeXJWNowQSFFAJM@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <newscache$lxp18j$pg2$1@news.sil.at>, Christian Walter
>> <wolti@sil.at> writes
>>> * They use the GNU C/C++ compiler tools which are somewhat "industry
>>>   standard" tools. Specially the good integration for inline assembler
>>>   in GCC is a big plus for embedded systems if you are doing low level
>>>   stuff.
>>
>> Hardly I would not recommend GCC for embedded use.
>
>That's because you sell "Industry Standard" compilers.

>I would conjecture you advocate Keil and IAR only because you are a reseller
>of those products.  :-)
>Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd.

And I can suggest you only advocate Gcc because you sell that?


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

Chris Hills wrote:
> In article <4549fa49$0$8717$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, Paul 
> Curtis <plc@rowley.co.uk> writes
>> "Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>> news:1UeXJWNowQSFFAJM@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In article <newscache$lxp18j$pg2$1@news.sil.at>, Christian Walter
>>> <wolti@sil.at> writes
>>>> * They use the GNU C/C++ compiler tools which are somewhat "industry
>>>>   standard" tools. Specially the good integration for inline assembler
>>>>   in GCC is a big plus for embedded systems if you are doing low level
>>>>   stuff.
>>>
>>> Hardly I would not recommend GCC for embedded use.
>>
>> That's because you sell "Industry Standard" compilers.
> 
>> I would conjecture you advocate Keil and IAR only because you are a 
>> reseller
>> of those products.  :-)
>> Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd.
> 
> And I can suggest you only advocate Gcc because you sell that?
> 

There is a big difference here.  You have been dismissing gcc out of 
hand, without giving any reasoning or evidence, or indication that you 
have even tried it, and without directly stating your commercial bias (I 
know people can follow the links in your sig.).  Paul has been 
advocating the compiler his company makes and sells, and saying why gcc 
is a suitable choice in industry.

I don't sell or resell tools, so I'm not biased.  Get the best tool for 
the job - and that depends on both the job and who's doing it.  But I'd 
rather see a discussion with useful information and reasoning - we all 
benefit from it (maybe I'll have to use ARM tools one day, or recommend 
them to a customer).  I don't like to see toolchains dismissed because 
their website looks too cheerful, and I don't like to seem them 
dismissed because they are gcc (no other reason has been given).  If 
tools like IAR and Keil are so much better, then surely you can come up 
with better reasons than telling us they are not quite as vastly 
expensive as they seem, and anyway professionals can afford to pay lots. 
  The only positive thing you've said about them is that they are 
popular (which is significant, but not decisive).

In article <454af9a0$0$8084$8404b019@news.wineasy.se>, David Brown 
<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes
>Chris Hills wrote:
>> In article <4549fa49$0$8717$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, 
>>Paul  Curtis <plc@rowley.co.uk> writes
>>> "Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>> news:1UeXJWNowQSFFAJM@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In article <newscache$lxp18j$pg2$1@news.sil.at>, Christian Walter
>>>> <wolti@sil.at> writes
>>>>> * They use the GNU C/C++ compiler tools which are somewhat "industry
>>>>>   standard" tools. Specially the good integration for inline assembler
>>>>>   in GCC is a big plus for embedded systems if you are doing low level
>>>>>   stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Hardly I would not recommend GCC for embedded use.
>>>
>>> That's because you sell "Industry Standard" compilers.
>>
>>> I would conjecture you advocate Keil and IAR only because you are a 
>>>reseller
>>> of those products.  :-)
>>> Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd.
>>  And I can suggest you only advocate Gcc because you sell that?
>>
>
>There is a big difference here.  You have been dismissing gcc out of 
>hand, without giving any reasoning or evidence, or indication that you 
>have even tried it, and without directly stating your commercial bias 
>(I know people can follow the links in your sig.).

I have been programming for nearly 30 years. I have only been in the 
distribution business a few years. I have used many compilers in anger.

>  Paul has been advocating the compiler his company makes and sells, 
>and saying why gcc is a suitable choice in industry.

Fair enough. However there is a tendency for GCC advocates to 
automatically dismiss any criticism of Gcc that comes from anyone who is 
involved in anyway with any commercial compiler.  Though they don't 
accept the argument in reverse.

>I don't sell or resell tools, so I'm not biased.

That does not hold true. You are assuming the only bias is from those 
who sell tools. See my last comment.

> Get the best tool for the job - and that depends on both the job and 
>who's doing it.

I agree.

>.  I don't like to see toolchains dismissed because their website looks 
>too cheerful,

I have made no comment on the Rowley web site (people in glass houses 
etc :-)  Rowley are compiler developers not web designers.  However the 
comments made re the Rowley web site I think were meant as constructive 
criticism from some one who wanted to recommend Rowley to his 
management. .

> and I don't like to seem them dismissed because they are gcc (no other 
>reason has been given).

I was dismissing Gcc not Rowley per-say. Rowley do a very good MSP430 
compiler

> If tools like IAR and Keil are so much better, then surely you can 
>come up with better reasons than telling us

Many people have done that. I recall a whole lot of benchmarks put up 
but they were all dismissed because they came from commercial sources. 
The only benchmarks the Gcc supporters would except were the ones that 
showed Gcc was as good as all the commercial compilers and ignored the 
fact that the benchmarks were from a commercial company that provided 
Gcc (no it wasn't Rowley)

The reaction I have had from inside several compiler companies is you 
can't reason with religion.

>they are not quite as vastly expensive as they seem

They are not expensive. You are using a distorted benchmark.   The IAR 
and Keil compilers are slightly on the higher side of the average for 
compilers. You are basing your "average" on one compiler at one end of 
the price distribution. Or should we judge all cars on the price of a 
Trabant?

>, and anyway professionals can afford to pay lots.  The only positive 
>thing you've said about them is that they are popular (which is 
>significant, but not decisive).

I could go on about passing the industry standard test suits etc but 
then it degenerates in the fact that the industry standard test suits 
cost money... and that there is a gcc test suite (which is unregulated) 
There is no level playing field for a discussion and you can't argue 
with religion.

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

"Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message 
news:YJPMeKDu6uSFFAtE@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In article <4549fa49$0$8717$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, Paul 
> Curtis <plc@rowley.co.uk> writes
>>"Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>news:1UeXJWNowQSFFAJM@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In article <newscache$lxp18j$pg2$1@news.sil.at>, Christian Walter
>>> <wolti@sil.at> writes
>>>> * They use the GNU C/C++ compiler tools which are somewhat "industry
>>>>   standard" tools. Specially the good integration for inline assembler
>>>>   in GCC is a big plus for embedded systems if you are doing low level
>>>>   stuff.
>>>
>>> Hardly I would not recommend GCC for embedded use.
>>
>>That's because you sell "Industry Standard" compilers.
>
>>I would conjecture you advocate Keil and IAR only because you are a 
>>reseller
>>of those products.  :-)
>>Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd.
>
> And I can suggest you only advocate Gcc because you sell that?

Tell me where I advocate purchasing our tools in my posting?  Or where I 
suggested not to purchase IAR/Keil/ADS?  I commented that dismissing GCC out 
of hand for embedded work just shows how out of touch you actually are.  I 
didn't denegrate any other compiler vendor.  I might dislike some particular 
practice or benchmark presentation, but I happen to be in regular contact 
with competitor tool companies for vaious reasons.

A product is more than a compiler, and a business is more than its products. 
IDE, library, support, it's a mix, and above all, fairness in the way we 
deal with customers, suppliers, partners, and competitors.

-- Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Limited.

"Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message 
news:tGUxtwGDRwSFFArx@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...

<snip>

> I have made no comment on the Rowley web site (people in glass houses 
> etc :-)  Rowley are compiler developers not web designers.  However 
> the comments made re the Rowley web site I think were meant as 
> constructive criticism from some one who wanted to recommend Rowley to 
> his management. .

If you are refering to the comments made elsewhere in this thread then 
the comments were in relation to the Imagecraft website - although I've 
just looked at Rowley's site and it has dramatically changed so I have 
no opinion on it yet. Your site is fine too but I do think your 
slightly-suprised-to-have-the-photo-taken portrait could perhaps do with 
a revamp ;-)