Hi Siegmar, that may work for you young guys, but I there's no room in

my bed for a microscope. Without it I couldn't read the palm screen. 
Books work for me, I can flick backwards and forwards, read more than 
one manual at a time, jot notes to myself, and not worry about the 
batteries running out.

Cheers

Al

omesa wrote:

>Hi Al
>
>you wrote :
>
>" ...My recent collection of ARM documentation ran to thousands
>of pages, 1600 in one document alone. printing the manuals cost me more 
>than the eval kit did. I loved my books, and still do, things you could
>spread over your desk, scribble notes in, and read in bed, or on the 
>throne. PDF's suck ..."
>
>
>I found for me a good solution : I have a Palm Tungsten T3  with a 512
>MB SD card and I have all the data sheets  in the repligo format(like
>pdf) on my palm. So on the throne, in bed or in the train, I have thousands
>of pages always with me. For me it is a good alternative for printing out
>thousands of pages. On the palm I can bookmark important sentences and
>also I can write my own comments.
>If you need more information give me a message.
>
>Eastern is near and so I wish you and all the members of this list a
>nice holiday time.
>It is really a fantastic list and all the informations and comments
>are very interesting, not only the technical informations !!!
>I was a long time ill and out of development with the MSP430, but I
>will start now again. But I was always a listener of this list and so
>always up to date !!! Thanks to all !!!!
>
>Very best regards to everybody
>
>from
>
>Siegmar
>
>
>
>.
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>

Hi Al

you wrote

"... Hi Siegmar, that may work for you young guys, but I there's no
room in
my bed for a microscope. Without it I couldn't read the palm screen. 
Books work for me, I can flick backwards and forwards, read more than 
one manual at a time, jot notes to myself, and not worry about the 
batteries running out ...."



Oh Al, for "soooo old guys" like you , there is a build in microscope,
named zoom !!!!
The Palm has really an excellent screen ! (480 x 320 pixel )
Before a got the Palm Tungsten T3 a prefer als the information by
paper, but now, it is really very comfortable . Test it if you can.
It is a problem with the lithium batteries, you are right. 4 hours are
the maximum until now, but after 4 hours reading a manuel, I am tired!

Have a nice day

Cheers

Siegmar

Yes.

Just about everyting about the MSP430 Code Composer points towards 
an 'industrial strength, portability and standards' attitude.

The compiler and tools is built on 'industrial strength, portability 
and standards' attitude gcc.

The pretty IDE points to 'industrial strength'. Texas Instruments did 
not produce the IDE. The push for the IDE comes from 'industrial 
strength' IBM who have poured millions into open source development of 
the IDE suitable for a wide variety of compilers. 

Texas Instruments made appropriate additions to gcc and made addins 
for the IDE. They already had a solid command line debugger for which 
a plugin was also made for the IDE.

In addition Texas Instruemnts has made the IDE and compiler a dead 
cinch to install which literlly saves hours of install time from 
seperate distributions. Texas Instruments deserve a lot of credit for 
a fantastic job.

I don't have the time or inclination to engage in compiler and IDE 
wars. I know these comments will infuriate vendors with their own 
patches to defend. That is not my problem.

John Heenan


--- In msp430@msp4..., Robert Wood <robert.wood@a...> wrote:
> A little off topic, but has anyone who's
played with the MSP430 Code 
> Composer also used the DSP version for the C2000 family? I find the 
> C2000 CC IDE, at best, clunky (a polite way of putting it!)
> 
> Just wondered whether the MSP430 one was as poor...
> 
> (Both of which are probably a zillion times better than Codewarrior!)
> 
> I don't think silicon manufacturers should be allowed by law to 
produce 
> IDEs! ;-)

Hi John, 

> Just about everyting about the MSP430 Code
Composer points 
> towards an 'industrial strength, portability and standards'
attitude.

No.  Sorry.  Absolutely not, IMO.

> The compiler and tools is built on
'industrial strength, 
> portability and standards' attitude gcc.

Pardon?  No, the compiler shipped with CCE is *not* GCC--get your facts
right.

> The pretty IDE points to 'industrial
strength'. Texas 
> Instruments did not produce the IDE. The push for the IDE 
> comes from 'industrial strength' IBM who have poured millions 
> into open source development of the IDE suitable for a wide 
> variety of compilers. 

I have problems with Eclipse: it's a "general IDE for everything, C,
C++, Java, WebSphere, databases".  It's a tool as blunt as a
sledgehammer and just as heavy.  You need sharp tools for good products.
It's an easy way out to use Eclipse and hide behind "open
source".  The
compilation tools aren't open source so it won't run on Linux or Mac
OS.

> Texas Instruments made appropriate additions to
gcc and made 
> addins for the IDE. They already had a solid command line 
> debugger for which a plugin was also made for the IDE.

No, TI did not make any additions to GCC because the compiler in CCE
isn't gcc.  Where are you dredging this up from?  You're sadly
misinformed.

> In addition Texas Instruemnts has made the IDE and
compiler a 
> dead cinch to install which literlly saves hours of install 
> time from seperate distributions. Texas Instruments deserve a 
> lot of credit for a fantastic job.

They deserve something, but hey, they need to get it out the door first.
When do you think it'll come out of beta?  It was announced in October,
supposed to ship in January, and yet still isn't here in March.

> I don't have the time or inclination to
engage in compiler 
> and IDE wars. I know these comments will infuriate vendors 
> with their own patches to defend. That is not my problem.

These comments infuriate me because you should have taken the time to
get your facts right.

I'll welcome the TI tools when they arrive--but how do you think
you'll
get support for them?  If they go the same way as the C2000 tools,
you'll be paying $495 per year just as you need to for the C2000 CC
tools.

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

I've looked at the PALM and various other PDA's, and have never
been a 
fan. 480 x 320 just doesn't make it for me. Zooming defeats the object . 
I don't want to read a line a few words at a time, I want to be able to 
see and read a whole page. lets face it, if I could read a PDA I 
wouldn't be bothered about reading a pdf on screen. If the CRT bothered 
me I could simply get an LCD display. MUCH bigger than the PDA. I also 
have a VR display that I use when I'm confined to bed. It's LCD based,

and 1024 x 768. but I don't really like that either. It comes down to 
the whole work method. I might want to have the Data sheet for the part 
open, while I double check the family user guide and the Instruction set 
reference. Only books do that comfortably. Until I am able to download 
the pdf into my long term memory, and have instant recall I'll stick to 
books.

Anyway, when people come to my home office it looks much more 
professional to have a few shelves with real books on than a PDA on the 
coffee table and my collection of Lancia Stratos models on the shelves. ;^}

Al

omesa wrote:

>Hi Al
>
>you wrote
>
>"... Hi Siegmar, that may work for you young guys, but I there's
no room in
>my bed for a microscope. Without it I couldn't read the palm screen. 
>Books work for me, I can flick backwards and forwards, read more than 
>one manual at a time, jot notes to myself, and not worry about the 
>batteries running out ...."
>
>
>
>Oh Al, for "soooo old guys" like you , there is a build in
microscope,
>named zoom !!!!
>The Palm has really an excellent screen ! (480 x 320 pixel )
>Before a got the Palm Tungsten T3 a prefer als the information by
>paper, but now, it is really very comfortable . Test it if you can.
>It is a problem with the lithium batteries, you are right. 4 hours are
>the maximum until now, but after 4 hours reading a manuel, I am tired!
>
>Have a nice day
>
>Cheers
>
>Siegmar
>
>
>
>.
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>

 >> >The pretty IDE points to 'industrial strength'.
Texas
 >> Instruments did not produce the IDE. The push for the IDE
 >> comes from 'industrial strength' IBM who have poured
millions
 >> into open source development of the IDE suitable for a wide
 >> variety of compilers.


I have problems with Eclipse: it's a "general IDE for everything, C,
C++, Java, WebSphere, databases".  It's a tool as blunt as a
sledgehammer and just as heavy.  You need sharp tools for good products.
It's an easy way out to use Eclipse and hide behind "open
source".  The
compilation tools aren't open source so it won't run on Linux or Mac
OS. <<

What I can't get my head around is people's reluctance to have a go
with 
a new IDE. If the IDE's well designed, it takes a few hours to get used 
to it. If it's badly written, even if it's a universal standard,
you'll 
never get used to it.

It's not just the IDE itself either, it's how it interacts with the
JTAG 
port or the emulator. (Another area where Metrowerks is utterly terrible 
with its 56F8xxx package.) Also, what's its code density like once
it's 
compiled? If it looks pretty but produces bloaty object code, how much 
use is that?!

I met someone the other day who was pretty much saying he was going to 
use CC with the MSP430 just because it's got this universal interface. 
He's not actually tried it, or any of the other IDEs, and I though it 
was a pretty odd attitude.

Pouring millions of pounds into something doesn't guarantee its quality 
either.

Rob - who has no patch to defend in this area! :~)

I am not going to check and confirm if the MSP430 Code Composer 
compiler is plugged into the gcc infrastructure or not. I suspect 
this is largely irrelevant as I am suspect the same highly regarded 
principles and standards apply whether the compiler comes under the 
gcc stable or not. If not under gcc it may be for licensing reasons.  
Point 6 below is relevant

In fact you need to a very dumb compiler writer to make a mess of 
writing an efficient complier for the MSP430 due to the nature of the 
addressing architecture of the MSP430. The ease of writing compilers 
for the MSP430 may explain why there are so many compilers on offer 
for the MSP430...

You have not defined what you mean by 'blunt' and 'sharp' in
the 
context of IDEs. So we cannot independently verify the point or 
points you are attempting to make.

These are facts about MSP430 Code Composer as I tried it in a beta 
edition on a Windows PC:

1. It was incredibly easy to install
2. I had some problems which I do not regard as bugs and would not 
arise on PCs which are less hammered than my own. These were reported 
to TI. The problems were solved.
3. Auto completion and browsing is supported, although class browsing 
is not an issue for C code.
4. The IDE is nice to look. In fact it is the nicest I have seen for 
any microcontroller (I like 'nice things'!)
5. The compiler and debugger works.
6. It ran C code written for gcc without any alteration.
7. It did not crash.
8. It had predictible behaviour.
9. In comparison to other IDEs, it took longer to move in and out of 
debug mode. This was irritating but certainly liveable. It is 
expected as Eclipse uses the JRE on Windows and moving in and of 
debug modes involves restoring window states of modes.
10. Test projects can be setup very quickly (I would say sharply).
11. The 'Howtos' in the documentation of the beta I used can be 
ignored. They may give the impression project setup must be 
involved, 'clumsy' or 'blunt'. This is not true.
12. The full debug features of the MSP430 feature were not supported 
to the same level as they are in IAR. However the expected level of 
debug features are supported.
13. I felt confident I could more easily port projects form other 
microcontrollers and not have unexpected issues or problems.

The MSP430 Code Composer comes across as a solid, strong piece of 
work that is not in the least bit flaky or prone to the unexpected. 
It did not have the fastest responding IDE I have used.

Since I have no affiliation or relationship with Texas Instruments I 
don't know when the MSP430 CC is coming out of beta. It is not an 
issue for me. I had a nice experience of what an IDE for 
microcontrollers can be like and I would like to thank TI and IBM for 
it.


John Heenan


--- In msp430@msp4..., "Paul Curtis" <plc@r...> wrote:
> Hi John, 
> 
> > Just about everyting about the MSP430 Code Composer points 
> > towards an 'industrial strength, portability and standards' 
attitude.
> 
> No.  Sorry.  Absolutely not, IMO.
> 
> > The compiler and tools is built on 'industrial strength, 
> > portability and standards' attitude gcc.
> 
> Pardon?  No, the compiler shipped with CCE is *not* GCC--get your 
facts
> right.
> 
> > The pretty IDE points to 'industrial strength'. Texas 
> > Instruments did not produce the IDE. The push for the IDE 
> > comes from 'industrial strength' IBM who have poured
millions 
> > into open source development of the IDE suitable for a wide 
> > variety of compilers. 
> 
> I have problems with Eclipse: it's a "general IDE for everything,
C,
> C++, Java, WebSphere, databases".  It's a tool as blunt as a
> sledgehammer and just as heavy.  You need sharp tools for good 
products.
> It's an easy way out to use Eclipse and hide
behind "open source".  
The
> compilation tools aren't open source so it
won't run on Linux or 
Mac OS.
> 
> > Texas Instruments made appropriate additions to gcc and made 
> > addins for the IDE. They already had a solid command line 
> > debugger for which a plugin was also made for the IDE.
> 
> No, TI did not make any additions to GCC because the compiler in CCE
> isn't gcc.  Where are you dredging this up from?  You're sadly
> misinformed.
> 
> > In addition Texas Instruemnts has made the IDE and compiler a 
> > dead cinch to install which literlly saves hours of install 
> > time from seperate distributions. Texas Instruments deserve a 
> > lot of credit for a fantastic job.
> 
> They deserve something, but hey, they need to get it out the door 
first.
> When do you think it'll come out of beta?  It
was announced in 
October,
> supposed to ship in January, and yet still
isn't here in March.
> 
> > I don't have the time or inclination to engage in compiler 
> > and IDE wars. I know these comments will infuriate vendors 
> > with their own patches to defend. That is not my problem.
> 
> These comments infuriate me because you should have taken the time 
to
> get your facts right.
> 
> I'll welcome the TI tools when they arrive--but how do you think 
you'll
> get support for them?  If they go the same way as
the C2000 tools,
> you'll be paying $495 per year just as you need to for the C2000 CC
> tools.
> 
> --
> Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd  http://www.rowley.co.uk
> CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and (soon) MAXQ processors

John,

> I am not going to check and confirm if the MSP430
Code 
> Composer compiler is plugged into the gcc infrastructure or 
> not.

Shame, it means your opinion isn't worth much because you made an
assertion without checking your facts and you still can't be bothered to
check them.

> I suspect this is largely irrelevant as I am
suspect the 
> same highly regarded principles and standards apply whether 
> the compiler comes under the gcc stable or not.

That was not the tone of your original post.  You decided that CCE was
industrial strength as it was based on Eclipse and GCC and a command
line debugger.  Only the fact it's based on Eclipse is true.

My only issue is the misrepresentation of CCE for what it is not.  It is
not based on GCC and it is not "open source".  TI's announcement
stretches the truth in my estimation.  Whether it floats customer's
collective boats is immaterial until it gets kicked out the door.

> In fact you need to a very dumb compiler writer to
make a 
> mess of writing an efficient complier for the MSP430 due to 
> the nature of the addressing architecture of the MSP430. The 
> ease of writing compilers for the MSP430 may explain why 
> there are so many compilers on offer for the MSP430...

The reason there are so many has nothing to do with architecture
design--it's all to do with the fact the MSP430 is storming the market.
In fact, you need to be a pretty bright compiler engineer to make the
most of the MSP430 as benchmarks will show. Producing a compiler is less
than half the story--you need a debugger and support and libraries and
documentation and list list goes on.

You just can't make statements like that and not have them challenged.

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

Sorry for jumping in late. Been out of the country :-)...

At 01:42 PM 3/25/2005, Paul Curtis wrote:
>Yes and no.  They've won awards for their IDE--it's their
documentation,
>"Award-winning Codewarrior IDE"...  Originally they produced Mac
>compilers for 68K and PPC (they got the PPC one from a Russian IIRC).
>Does anybody remember Metrowerks Pascal and Modula-2 or the fact they
>produced Modula-2 compilers for MIPS?  Or am I the only sad git and
>remember thee things?

Metrowerks' PPC is the tool that "saved Apple." IIRC. I know the
guy who 
was part of Think C, and I thought he was the one that wrote the MW PPC 
code generator, but I can be very well much be wrong here, seeing my brain 
cells are disappearing :-)

As for Modula-2, I know it's your baby et al., but on this side of the 
pond, it's pretty much non-issue except for Jerry Pournelle kept praising 
it to high heaven. Since he's a decent SF writer but not much of a 
programmer, that hasn't done much for the market :-)

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

At 10:43 AM 3/25/2005, hc08jb8 wrote:
>...Thank god they are not in the MSP arena, IAR
seems decent enuf for
>most simple jobs, but there are limitations with the Kickstart which
>gets one to considers a full blown tool. I have been evaluating both
>Paul's and Richards's IDE+tools, at anyday these tools are
awsome
>value for money. Perhps being smaller company gives them the reason
>to listen to actual users and implement features required rather than
>big shot tool vendor  trying to please big shot client's upper
>management.
>
>Frustrated User,
>Jay

It's simple - we have thousands of active users. If 10% sends us an email 
on feature request or bug report, we would be swamped. So we put in 
features that people want, make things as easy as possible etc.


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