Richard,

...you avoided the question of kids, cuckoos, and sheep admirably.  I'm
sure you saw a much improved version of what I've seen from the
veritable manufacturer.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard [mailto:richard-lists@rich...] 
> Sent: 23 November 2004 23:31
> To: msp430@msp4...
> Subject: RE: [msp430] MSP430 C compilers
> 
> 
> We are pretty much being "forced" into it. Remember we have 
> multiple product lines. On the MSP430, IAR has been giving 
> out freebies. On the Motorola/Freescale, Metrowerks give out 
> compilers like candies. On the AVR, there's the low cost 
> competitor from Romanian. ARM has lots of freebies too. Then 
> you have GNU. So for us, it makes sense to do it this way.
> 
> It is all a matter of business decisions of course. It makes 
> sense for us to go down that route, but may or may not work for ya.
> 
> At 03:15 PM 11/23/2004, Paul Curtis wrote:
> 
> 
> >Hi Richard,
> >
> > > At V7, our (ImageCraft's, not Rowley's) demos will be
fully 
> > > functional for
> > > 45 days, then change to a 4K code limited for non-commercial use 
> > > with no time limit.
> >
> >That's brave.  However, it seems to be the way the world is
headed, 
> >though I don't see how the non-commercial use can be 
> enforced.  Anybody 
> >have any opinions on the new kid on the block, cuckoo in the nest or 
> >black sheep of the family?
> >
> >-
> >
> 
> // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me 
> directly, please use richard at imagecraft.com) 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> --------------------~--> 
> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/CFFolB/TM
> --------------------------
> ------~-> 
> 
> .
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

We are pretty much being "forced" into it. Remember we have
multiple 
product lines. On the MSP430, IAR has been giving out freebies. On the 
Motorola/Freescale, Metrowerks give out compilers like candies. On the AVR, 
there's the low cost competitor from Romanian. ARM has lots of freebies 
too. Then you have GNU. So for us, it makes sense to do it this way.

It is all a matter of business decisions of course. It makes sense for us 
to go down that route, but may or may not work for ya.

At 03:15 PM 11/23/2004, Paul Curtis wrote:


>Hi Richard,
>
> > At V7, our (ImageCraft's, not Rowley's) demos will be fully
> > functional for
> > 45 days, then change to a 4K code limited for non-commercial
> > use with no time limit.
>
>That's brave.  However, it seems to be the way the world is headed,
>though I don't see how the non-commercial use can be enforced.  Anybody
>have any opinions on the new kid on the block, cuckoo in the nest or
>black sheep of the family?
>
>-
>

// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please 
use richard at imagecraft.com) 

Well I don't use compilers, but even I know that the cheap IAR tool is

limited to 4k of code. personally IDE rather have unlimited code on a 
time limited product, than unlimited time to use a limited product. I 
also believe that most of the other compiler vendors can be flexible 
with trial periods.

You are obviously not talking about the $2000 full version of IAR.

Al

josh lu wrote:

> Oh yes, it is the goodest.
> Why can't you also offer a limited version of your
> IDE and with no 30day limit?
> 
> Josh
> 
> --- Paul Curtis <plc@plc@...> wrote:
> 
> 
>>...I don't think so.
>>
>>--
>>Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd 
>>http://www.rowley.co.uk
>>CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, and (soon) Atmel AVR
>>processors   
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Alexey Starostin [mailto:vesago@vesa...] 
>>>Sent: 23 November 2004 11:48
>>>To: msp430@msp4...
>>>Subject: RE: [msp430] MSP430 C compilers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hi.
>>>
>>>IAR the most good compiler for MSP430.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: john_the_ee [mailto:john_the_ee@john...]
>>>>Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 12:21 AM
>>>>To: msp430@msp4...
>>>>Subject: [msp430] MSP430 C compilers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hi.
>>>>
>>>>I am looking to purchase a compiler for the
>>
>>MSP430 uC.
>>
>>>>I would like to hear which compiler you prefer
>>
>>and why.  Cost is an 
>>
>>>>issue, but I'm willing to pay for high quality.
>>>>
>>>>I think I will avoid msp430-gcc because I want
>>
>>something 
>>
>>>with an IDE 
>>>
>>>>and I need to get up and running quickly.
>>>>
>>>>Any general comments you have an MSP430 tools
>>
>>vs. PIC or 
>>
>>>AVR would be 
>>>
>>>>helpful
>>>>
>>>>Below are the compilers I found:
>>>>
>>>>1. Quadravox
>>>>2. IAR
>>>>3. Rowley & Associates
>>>>4. HiTech
>>>>5. ICC430
>>>>6. ImageCraft ICC430
>>>>7. MSPGCC (free)
>>>>
>>>>I am looking to use the Elptronic JTAG
>>
>>interface:
>>
>>>>http://www.elprotronic.com/Products.asp
>>>>
>>>>Suggestions and comments would be great.
>>>>John.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>>>--------------------~-->
>>>$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
>>>
>>
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/CFFolB/TM
> 
> --------------------------
> 
>>>------~-> 
>>>
>>>.
>>>
>>> 
>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 		
> __________________________________ 
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 

Ha ha, you give me too much credit :-) I know probably a lot less than you 
do... but, well, lets see, you have Eclipse, which is the darling of the 
open source community but otherwise unproven to embedded engineers, 
especially on low end processors like the MSP430. You stir in GNU, which is 
either loved by the open source embracers, or indifferent at best or hated 
at worst by others, and you still do not have answers for:

- support
- GUI debugger that is not sitting on top of a command line tool
- other GUI goodies

I just don't know why a company would put in, I don't know, 3, 4
engineers 
on such a project. It makes even less sense than Motorola buying up 
Metrowerks.... Its main goal seems to be putting some company engineers on 
payroll and fatten up some division manager's dream mandates or something. 
Meanwhile, the 3rd party vendor support will naturally shrink. Look at 
Motorola/Freescale, they used to have tons of 3rd party supporting them, 
but so far only 2 companies announce they will support the new S12X - 
Metrowerks (not like they have a choice) and Cosmic. That's it. I
don't 
even think IAR announces their support yet, although chances are they will.

So the customers would rejoice (briefly) that they get vendor supported 
tools, but ultimately they will have less choices when compiler vendors 
decide it is better to retire to Hawaii and sip martini all days and slug 
it out...

At 03:24 PM 11/23/2004, Paul Curtis wrote:
>Richard,
>
>...you avoided the question of kids, cuckoos, and sheep admirably.  I'm
>sure you saw a much improved version of what I've seen from the
>veritable manufacturer.

// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please 
use richard at imagecraft.com) 

What is the difference between Courier New and Courier? I can not 
see any differences in MS Word. 

--- In msp430@msp4..., "Omer YALHI" <oyalhi@t...> wrote:
> Adriano,
>  
> Are you able to see and use the Courier font, not "Courier New" 
under
> Rowley's IDE?  I can select the font;
however, it still displays 
the
> "Courier New".  This could be computer
problem; however, I can use 
Courier
> font with any standart text editor or any other
PIC or MSP430 
compiler IDE
> for that matter (test versions).
>  
> Regards, Omer
> 
>  
>   _____  
> 

> What is the difference between Courier New and
Courier? I can 
> not see any differences in MS Word. 

You're not looking hard enough--try a larger font size.  Adobe Courier
is nicer than Microsoft's OpenType or TrueType Courier New and,
amazingly, looks better on paper (it's heavier) like the real Courier
font does.  I exclusively use Adobe typefaces for print, but I must say
that Verdana is a nice font to browse in and is easy on the eyes when
used on screen (crap in print).

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

Hi Richard,

...they're not using a GNU compiler, though, and it's certainly not
optimized (though it does seem to "function").  And it seems the
Eclipse
license requires disclosure of the source code of the things that go
into the IDE (not the compilation tools).  I'm sure it can all be
obfusticated by DLLing or making lots of external executables.  I'm not
convinced Eclipse is a good platform; I think it whiffs big time and is
simply a distraction.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard [mailto:richard-lists@rich...] 
> Sent: 23 November 2004 23:48
> To: msp430@msp4...; msp430@msp4...
> Subject: RE: [msp430] MSP430 C compilers
> 
> 
> Ha ha, you give me too much credit :-) I know probably a lot 
> less than you do... but, well, lets see, you have Eclipse, 
> which is the darling of the open source community but 
> otherwise unproven to embedded engineers, especially on low 
> end processors like the MSP430. You stir in GNU, which is 
> either loved by the open source embracers, or indifferent at 
> best or hated at worst by others, and you still do not have 
> answers for:
> 
> - support
> - GUI debugger that is not sitting on top of a command line tool
> - other GUI goodies
> 
> I just don't know why a company would put in, I don't know, 
> 3, 4 engineers on such a project. It makes even less sense 
> than Motorola buying up Metrowerks.... Its main goal seems to 
> be putting some company engineers on payroll and fatten up 
> some division manager's dream mandates or something. 
> Meanwhile, the 3rd party vendor support will naturally 
> shrink. Look at Motorola/Freescale, they used to have tons of 
> 3rd party supporting them, but so far only 2 companies 
> announce they will support the new S12X - Metrowerks (not 
> like they have a choice) and Cosmic. That's it. I don't even 
> think IAR announces their support yet, although chances are they will.
> 
> So the customers would rejoice (briefly) that they get vendor 
> supported tools, but ultimately they will have less choices 
> when compiler vendors decide it is better to retire to Hawaii 
> and sip martini all days and slug it out...
> 
> At 03:24 PM 11/23/2004, Paul Curtis wrote:
> >Richard,
> >
> >...you avoided the question of kids, cuckoos, and sheep 
> admirably.  I'm 
> >sure you saw a much improved version of what I've seen from the 
> >veritable manufacturer.
> 
> // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me 
> directly, please use richard at imagecraft.com) 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> --------------------~--> 
> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/CFFolB/TM
> --------------------------
> ------~-> 
> 
> .
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Oy! They don't even use GNU? WTF? I guess someone wants to build an
empire 
within the company. This is even more lameass than leveraging GNU. If they 
put in as much effort as to SUPPORTING the 3rd party vendor..

This reminds me where I worked in the big minicomputer company in 
Maynard/Nashua. The GEM compiler gets no respect despite it is the compiler 
that gave the performance edges to VAX-C, MIPS, and then Alpha. Some crack 
team in the West Coast tried to build their own empire and did yet another 
compiler, oh why oh why...

At 04:17 PM 11/23/2004, Paul Curtis wrote:


>Hi Richard,
>
>...they're not using a GNU compiler, though, and it's certainly
not
>optimized (though it does seem to "function").  And it seems the
Eclipse
>license requires disclosure of the source code of the things that go
>into the IDE (not the compilation tools).  I'm sure it can all be
>obfusticated by DLLing or making lots of external executables.  I'm not
>convinced Eclipse is a good platform; I think it whiffs big time and is
>simply a distraction.

// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please 
use richard at imagecraft.com) 

On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 12:17:24AM -0000, Paul Curtis wrote:
> And it seems the Eclipse
> license requires disclosure of the source code of the things that go
> into the IDE (not the compilation tools).  I'm sure it can all be

Only if that "thing" is actually a derivative of Eclipse code. A
plug-in
that you wrote yourself from scratch would not have to be distributed
as source.

> obfusticated by DLLing or making lots of external
executables. 

It doesn't matter whether it's a DLL or external, or just another Java
class that gets loaded, it's what source code it's based on that
matters.
This is what distinguishes the GPL (which is designed to inhibit commercial
exploitation) from the EPL (which is designed to facilitate commercial use).

> I'm not convinced Eclipse is a good platform;
I think it whiffs big time and is
> simply a distraction.

The attraction of Eclipse is that if it is established as a standard IDE,
then compiler vendors can get back to writing compilers instead of IDEs.

Cheers, Clyde

-- 
Clyde Stubbs                     |            HI-TECH Software
Email: clyde@clyd...          |          Phone            Fax
WWW:   http://www.htsoft.com/    | USA: (408) 490 2885  (408) 490 2885
PGP:   finger clyde@clyd...   | AUS: +61 7 3552 7777 +61 7 3552 7778
---
HI-TECH C: compiling the real world.

Clyde, 

> On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 12:17:24AM -0000, Paul
Curtis wrote:
> > And it seems the Eclipse
> > license requires disclosure of the source code of the 
> things that go 
> > into the IDE (not the compilation tools).  I'm sure it can all be
> 
> Only if that "thing" is actually a derivative of Eclipse 
> code. A plug-in that you wrote yourself from scratch would 
> not have to be distributed as source.
> 
> > obfusticated by DLLing or making lots of external executables. 
> 
> It doesn't matter whether it's a DLL or external, or just 
> another Java class that gets loaded, it's what source code 
> it's based on that matters.
> This is what distinguishes the GPL (which is designed to 
> inhibit commercial
> exploitation) from the EPL (which is designed to facilitate 
> commercial use).

I believe it all hinges on the definition of "derivative work" which
is
not well specified by the EPL; the EPL must be even less mature than
LGPL and GPL, and it's a bit vague.

I don't care one way or the other about the license terms, but somebody
within TI needs to (and they are attending to by all accounts).

> > I'm not convinced Eclipse is a good
platform; I think it whiffs big 
> > time and is simply a distraction.
> 
> The attraction of Eclipse is that if it is established as a 
> standard IDE, then compiler vendors can get back to writing 
> compilers instead of IDEs.

Oh, so Eclipse in the UNCOL of the IDE world?  Hey, I'm scared, I'm
just
wetting my pants... Roll on Eclipse!  ;-)

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