Hi John,
Thanks for clearing this up.
Incidentally, your views on C-spy correlate with mine.
V2.10A is quite a quantum leap in that regard, but I'm a bit paranoid
with
that bug.
I think that when "docked windows" are added to IAR new genearation
SW
(which after all has a completely new code generator, and actually a darn
good one !!)
I've been peaved off with C-spy for a long, long time (AVR used
Atmel's nice
AVR Studio SW)
V2.10A is a sigh of relief in that regard, but RAL's CrossWorks leave
IAR's
debugging GUI
behind.
My highest priority however had always been code density and quality, so I
had to "put up"
with C-spy.
The EW430 was a serious investment for me too, but I had the fortune of
recuping it quite quickly
with my consulting work.
If it had to come out of my own pocket, I couldn't afford that, but I
don't
think that would therefore
give me the right to bag it :-)
Hope you didn't take offense
Thanks for your input !
All the best,
Kris
IAR C compiler in-line assemble support
Started by ●June 27, 2003
Reply by ●June 27, 20032003-06-27
Reply by ●June 27, 20032003-06-27
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:46:29 -0700, Richard wrote:
>At 01:20 PM 6/27/2003 -0700, Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
>>So this does pose an interesting question or two. What can the
>>smaller folks *do* to ameliorate the apparent contrast against
>>the larger companies? Perhaps placing all of the source and
>>tools they use into an escrow, where if they are no longer able
>>to service their own products according to some objective
>>standard, that all the code is released to any customer who asks
>>for it? Or just releasing a universal unlock code at that time,
>>from escrow? Or disclosing their mothers' home phones, so we
>>can all call them up and ask for the whereabouts of their kids
>>-- okay, maybe I'm kidding a little, there.
>
>First of all, larger companies go out of business as often :-)
The questions still get asked, with the same underlying
assumptions. J.C. Wren's point, "Another issue is not just
support, but perception of stability of the company," is what
I'm referring to, here. It happens that way. I've been there,
seen that.
So, whether I take your point here, or not, doesn't matter. The
questions still arise. And still need to be addressed. As a
person who recommends purchases, I'm just a conduit for this
kind of thing, telling my boss (or whomever is asking) what you
or someone else says in reply to this kind of thing. If they
like your answer, that's great. If they don't, then don't
expect me to necessarily get into the middle of it and make your
points for you. It's not a factual question, so much as a
perceptual one. And it's your job to have an answer, not mine.
I thought J.C. Wren's point was interesting and worth a little
exploration.
>You guys
>talked about the old days, OK, how many of you have used Whitesmiths,
P. J. Plauger? Yes.
>Tasking,
No.
>Lattice,
Yes, and I'm still using it for currently shipping products.
Can you tell me that I can count on doing the same with your
products, should you disappear off the face of the Earth?
Lattice has no unlock codes, no weird crap to get in my way. I
can flop their tools on a new machine I build up in minutes and
get going. No pain at all. It's an old product. But you know
what? I've never been scared of using it because it's not copy
protected. I know I'm in control. That's a very nice feeling,
for embedded development where a product may very well outlast
any company (including the company which developed the product.)
>Aztec C in the 1970s to 1980s?
Yes.
>Yup, if you have their
>compilers, you are dead.
No! Here is where you and I part company, Richard. I'm *using*
Lattice C, right now. Last time I did a compilation run with it
was about 3 weeks ago.
I am decidedly NOT dead. So don't tell me otherwise.
>Or even Greenhills,
Hated Greenhills. Buggier than anything and lousy support, in
the 1990 time frame. Scared to even look at them, now.
>SDS, etc. They are bigger companies that got bought up
>by,... even bigger companies!
Yes. POint being?
>So if you have their compilers, you are toasted as well.
Not if they don't use copy protection. If you've ever read my
posts on this subject, you *know* I'm dead opposed to protection
schemes, exactly because of my long experience developing
products and seeing the problems that these things actually have
done to development. And I have a very hard time agreeing with
anyone telling me that their bread-and-butter is so important to
them that they are willing to place me and my client at risk,
just for their protection. Especially, since we aren't thieves
and we are paying the bills.
But that's my slant, Richard. I also accept the efforts I'm
forced to go through, at times. I *do* understand the cautious
behavior and self-protection instincts. But you can also
understand that I look for those schemes which are less likely
to get in my way, should push come to shove. I want control
over my projects. It's as simple as that.
>And not to trash Open Source Software, but the idea of "oh well, if someone
>doesn't fix the bug, I will" is underestimating how insidious compiler bugs
>can be.
Indeed. I have purchased an MSP430 C compiler, rather than try
and use something else, partly because I like knowing there is
someone I can call. And, to be honest, I'm very glad there are
people like you and Michel and others who will reply to a letter
and help out. I suppose, if someone placed themselves in harm's
way with gcc and were willing to offer the same levels of
support with it, I'd consider that option, too.
But then, I hadn't brought up the subject of open source. Just
the idea that, if someone gets hit by a truck, that customers
will be guaranteed a measure of control over their own
circumstances.
The Lattice case is an example of what I mean. The software and
the compiler tools have since moved to many, many machines.
There has never been more than one person responsible for this,
exactly one seat always in the intervening 16 years or so. And
even then, only sporadically.
Now, if it *had* been protected up the gazzoo with schemes tied
to the processor and disk or whatnot, I can assure you that we'd
have had to pay for a complete redevelopment of what was already
many years in the doing. And that would NOT have sat well with
anyone. And worse, there would have been no good reason for the
jerk around. It would have been just plain sillyness to have
blocked us from doing our jobs.
>Anyway, speaking for ImageCraft only:
>- if I ever get rich enough to retire, my plan is to release all tools w/o
>any copy protections etc. BTW, the #1 reason we use the licensing scheme
>is so that we can upgrade our customers w/o any pain and suffering.
I hope you get that rich. In fact, I hope you get rich enough
to send me a spare million. ;)
>- if I were to get hit over by a truck, there are plans to do #1.
Excellent.
>- if neither is available for whatever reasons, there are painfully
>obvious ways to run our compilers on any Win32 platform if you whack your
>brain hard enough to think about it.
Hehe. Hopefully, you'll have a nice instruction sheet on that
in escrow...
>Enough said.
Well... maybe.
But thanks much for your point of view. It's enjoyable.
Jon
>At 01:20 PM 6/27/2003 -0700, Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
>>So this does pose an interesting question or two. What can the
>>smaller folks *do* to ameliorate the apparent contrast against
>>the larger companies? Perhaps placing all of the source and
>>tools they use into an escrow, where if they are no longer able
>>to service their own products according to some objective
>>standard, that all the code is released to any customer who asks
>>for it? Or just releasing a universal unlock code at that time,
>>from escrow? Or disclosing their mothers' home phones, so we
>>can all call them up and ask for the whereabouts of their kids
>>-- okay, maybe I'm kidding a little, there.
>
>First of all, larger companies go out of business as often :-)
The questions still get asked, with the same underlying
assumptions. J.C. Wren's point, "Another issue is not just
support, but perception of stability of the company," is what
I'm referring to, here. It happens that way. I've been there,
seen that.
So, whether I take your point here, or not, doesn't matter. The
questions still arise. And still need to be addressed. As a
person who recommends purchases, I'm just a conduit for this
kind of thing, telling my boss (or whomever is asking) what you
or someone else says in reply to this kind of thing. If they
like your answer, that's great. If they don't, then don't
expect me to necessarily get into the middle of it and make your
points for you. It's not a factual question, so much as a
perceptual one. And it's your job to have an answer, not mine.
I thought J.C. Wren's point was interesting and worth a little
exploration.
>You guys
>talked about the old days, OK, how many of you have used Whitesmiths,
P. J. Plauger? Yes.
>Tasking,
No.
>Lattice,
Yes, and I'm still using it for currently shipping products.
Can you tell me that I can count on doing the same with your
products, should you disappear off the face of the Earth?
Lattice has no unlock codes, no weird crap to get in my way. I
can flop their tools on a new machine I build up in minutes and
get going. No pain at all. It's an old product. But you know
what? I've never been scared of using it because it's not copy
protected. I know I'm in control. That's a very nice feeling,
for embedded development where a product may very well outlast
any company (including the company which developed the product.)
>Aztec C in the 1970s to 1980s?
Yes.
>Yup, if you have their
>compilers, you are dead.
No! Here is where you and I part company, Richard. I'm *using*
Lattice C, right now. Last time I did a compilation run with it
was about 3 weeks ago.
I am decidedly NOT dead. So don't tell me otherwise.
>Or even Greenhills,
Hated Greenhills. Buggier than anything and lousy support, in
the 1990 time frame. Scared to even look at them, now.
>SDS, etc. They are bigger companies that got bought up
>by,... even bigger companies!
Yes. POint being?
>So if you have their compilers, you are toasted as well.
Not if they don't use copy protection. If you've ever read my
posts on this subject, you *know* I'm dead opposed to protection
schemes, exactly because of my long experience developing
products and seeing the problems that these things actually have
done to development. And I have a very hard time agreeing with
anyone telling me that their bread-and-butter is so important to
them that they are willing to place me and my client at risk,
just for their protection. Especially, since we aren't thieves
and we are paying the bills.
But that's my slant, Richard. I also accept the efforts I'm
forced to go through, at times. I *do* understand the cautious
behavior and self-protection instincts. But you can also
understand that I look for those schemes which are less likely
to get in my way, should push come to shove. I want control
over my projects. It's as simple as that.
>And not to trash Open Source Software, but the idea of "oh well, if someone
>doesn't fix the bug, I will" is underestimating how insidious compiler bugs
>can be.
Indeed. I have purchased an MSP430 C compiler, rather than try
and use something else, partly because I like knowing there is
someone I can call. And, to be honest, I'm very glad there are
people like you and Michel and others who will reply to a letter
and help out. I suppose, if someone placed themselves in harm's
way with gcc and were willing to offer the same levels of
support with it, I'd consider that option, too.
But then, I hadn't brought up the subject of open source. Just
the idea that, if someone gets hit by a truck, that customers
will be guaranteed a measure of control over their own
circumstances.
The Lattice case is an example of what I mean. The software and
the compiler tools have since moved to many, many machines.
There has never been more than one person responsible for this,
exactly one seat always in the intervening 16 years or so. And
even then, only sporadically.
Now, if it *had* been protected up the gazzoo with schemes tied
to the processor and disk or whatnot, I can assure you that we'd
have had to pay for a complete redevelopment of what was already
many years in the doing. And that would NOT have sat well with
anyone. And worse, there would have been no good reason for the
jerk around. It would have been just plain sillyness to have
blocked us from doing our jobs.
>Anyway, speaking for ImageCraft only:
>- if I ever get rich enough to retire, my plan is to release all tools w/o
>any copy protections etc. BTW, the #1 reason we use the licensing scheme
>is so that we can upgrade our customers w/o any pain and suffering.
I hope you get that rich. In fact, I hope you get rich enough
to send me a spare million. ;)
>- if I were to get hit over by a truck, there are plans to do #1.
Excellent.
>- if neither is available for whatever reasons, there are painfully
>obvious ways to run our compilers on any Win32 platform if you whack your
>brain hard enough to think about it.
Hehe. Hopefully, you'll have a nice instruction sheet on that
in escrow...
>Enough said.
Well... maybe.
But thanks much for your point of view. It's enjoyable.
Jon
Reply by ●June 27, 20032003-06-27
[ the msg is long, so I do selective snipping, hopefully I do not
accidentally mis-represented what you said ...]
At 03:18 PM 6/27/2003 -0700, Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
>...So, whether I take your point here, or not, doesn't matter. The
>questions still arise. And still need to be addressed. As a
>person who recommends purchases, I'm just a conduit for this
>kind of thing, telling my boss (or whomever is asking) what you
>or someone else says in reply to this kind of thing. If they
>like your answer, that's great. If they don't, then don't
>expect me to necessarily get into the middle of it and make your
>points for you. It's not a factual question, so much as a
>perceptual one. And it's your job to have an answer, not mine.
That's fine, and we are in a position that can say, we will try our darnest
to make sure that people will be happy with our decisions. If not, they are
welcome to use other company's products, or GCC etc. We don't need to get
every sales there is. The marketplace will offer choices. Great to live in
a capitalistic society, eh? :-)
>I thought J.C. Wren's point was interesting and worth a little
>exploration.
>...
>Lattice has no unlock codes, no weird crap to get in my way. I
>can flop their tools on a new machine I build up in minutes and
>get going. No pain at all. It's an old product. But you know
>what? I've never been scared of using it because it's not copy
>protected. I know I'm in control. That's a very nice feeling,
>for embedded development where a product may very well outlast
>any company (including the company which developed the product.)
Ah, what if you found bugs in their compilers? That it is dead as a
doornail in terms of support. You will need to work around it.
>...>Yup, if you have their
> >compilers, you are dead.
>
>No! Here is where you and I part company, Richard. I'm *using*
>Lattice C, right now. Last time I did a compilation run with it
>was about 3 weeks ago.
>
>I am decidedly NOT dead. So don't tell me otherwise.
Only regarding support and bug fixes!
> >Or even Greenhills,
>
>Hated Greenhills. Buggier than anything and lousy support, in
>the 1990 time frame. Scared to even look at them, now.
>
> >SDS, etc. They are bigger companies that got bought up
> >by,... even bigger companies!
>
>Yes. POint being?
The point being that some people like to vault off a copy of the
development tools, in case they need to rebuild old projects. That's fine.
The trouble comes in when management says, lets add this teeny feature to
this 10 year old products, and wham, bug times. So much for vaulting off
old copies. Point is everything has a risk.
In theory, you need to vault off a copy of the PC w/ the OS as well. Why?
For example, your Lattice C probably does not use a DOS-32 extender. They
work more or less OK until Win2K and XP. So should you make sure all
vendors' tools work on DOS box only? Etc. It's a complex issue and each
person has to make their own decisions. We don't claim to be the best for
everyone although we try to please as many people as we logically can. We
are flexible. People wanted dongles, so we offer that as an option. etc.
> >So if you have their compilers, you are toasted as well.
>
>Not if they don't use copy protection. If you've ever read my
>posts on this subject, you *know* I'm dead opposed to protection
>schemes, exactly because of my long experience developing
>products and seeing the problems that these things actually have
>done to development. And I have a very hard time agreeing with
>anyone telling me that their bread-and-butter is so important to
>them that they are willing to place me and my client at risk,
>just for their protection. Especially, since we aren't thieves
>and we are paying the bills.
In this country, if someone steals our compiler, they will never buy anyway
regardless our prices. Other countries are different. Roughly 30% of the
sales are oversea. We EVEN sell in Russia and China where piracy is so
rampant, it's not funny. Just it is unfair if a vendor ONLY put in copy
protection because they think their clients are thieves otherwise, it is
UNFAIR for a customer to think that's the only reason a vendor chooses to
use some sort of copy protection.
Jon, we have over thousands of ACTIVE users at a given time. You give me a
scenario where I can painlessly update them, minding that some of the
customers are oversea etc. and I will consider it strongly.
>But that's my slant, Richard. I also accept the efforts I'm
>forced to go through, at times. I *do* understand the cautious
>behavior and self-protection instincts. But you can also
>understand that I look for those schemes which are less likely
>to get in my way, should push come to shove. I want control
>over my projects. It's as simple as that.
No disagreement here. Hence we offer choices....
> >Anyway, speaking for ImageCraft only:
> >- if I ever get rich enough to retire, my plan is to release all tools w/o
> >any copy protections etc. BTW, the #1 reason we use the licensing scheme
> >is so that we can upgrade our customers w/o any pain and suffering.
>
>I hope you get that rich. In fact, I hope you get rich enough
>to send me a spare million. ;)
If I get as rich as Bill G, I will sure to send you a million or two.
> >- if I were to get hit over by a truck, there are plans to do #1.
>
>Excellent.
>
> >- if neither is available for whatever reasons, there are painfully
> >obvious ways to run our compilers on any Win32 platform if you whack your
> >brain hard enough to think about it.
>
>Hehe. Hopefully, you'll have a nice instruction sheet on that
>in escrow...
We have employees and lots of distributors. Even hackers on the net who can
tell you. ImageCraft is not a single person company any more :-)
> >Enough said.
>
>Well... maybe.
>
>But thanks much for your point of view. It's enjoyable.
>
>Jon
Let me just reiterate that do not assume we put in copy protection just to
prevent piracy. There are other reasons as well. Mine may be different from
Qudravox or Rowley, but they probably do have other reasons themselves as
well!
// richard <http://www.imagecraft.com>
<http://www.dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo>
accidentally mis-represented what you said ...]
At 03:18 PM 6/27/2003 -0700, Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
>...So, whether I take your point here, or not, doesn't matter. The
>questions still arise. And still need to be addressed. As a
>person who recommends purchases, I'm just a conduit for this
>kind of thing, telling my boss (or whomever is asking) what you
>or someone else says in reply to this kind of thing. If they
>like your answer, that's great. If they don't, then don't
>expect me to necessarily get into the middle of it and make your
>points for you. It's not a factual question, so much as a
>perceptual one. And it's your job to have an answer, not mine.
That's fine, and we are in a position that can say, we will try our darnest
to make sure that people will be happy with our decisions. If not, they are
welcome to use other company's products, or GCC etc. We don't need to get
every sales there is. The marketplace will offer choices. Great to live in
a capitalistic society, eh? :-)
>I thought J.C. Wren's point was interesting and worth a little
>exploration.
>...
>Lattice has no unlock codes, no weird crap to get in my way. I
>can flop their tools on a new machine I build up in minutes and
>get going. No pain at all. It's an old product. But you know
>what? I've never been scared of using it because it's not copy
>protected. I know I'm in control. That's a very nice feeling,
>for embedded development where a product may very well outlast
>any company (including the company which developed the product.)
Ah, what if you found bugs in their compilers? That it is dead as a
doornail in terms of support. You will need to work around it.
>...>Yup, if you have their
> >compilers, you are dead.
>
>No! Here is where you and I part company, Richard. I'm *using*
>Lattice C, right now. Last time I did a compilation run with it
>was about 3 weeks ago.
>
>I am decidedly NOT dead. So don't tell me otherwise.
Only regarding support and bug fixes!
> >Or even Greenhills,
>
>Hated Greenhills. Buggier than anything and lousy support, in
>the 1990 time frame. Scared to even look at them, now.
>
> >SDS, etc. They are bigger companies that got bought up
> >by,... even bigger companies!
>
>Yes. POint being?
The point being that some people like to vault off a copy of the
development tools, in case they need to rebuild old projects. That's fine.
The trouble comes in when management says, lets add this teeny feature to
this 10 year old products, and wham, bug times. So much for vaulting off
old copies. Point is everything has a risk.
In theory, you need to vault off a copy of the PC w/ the OS as well. Why?
For example, your Lattice C probably does not use a DOS-32 extender. They
work more or less OK until Win2K and XP. So should you make sure all
vendors' tools work on DOS box only? Etc. It's a complex issue and each
person has to make their own decisions. We don't claim to be the best for
everyone although we try to please as many people as we logically can. We
are flexible. People wanted dongles, so we offer that as an option. etc.
> >So if you have their compilers, you are toasted as well.
>
>Not if they don't use copy protection. If you've ever read my
>posts on this subject, you *know* I'm dead opposed to protection
>schemes, exactly because of my long experience developing
>products and seeing the problems that these things actually have
>done to development. And I have a very hard time agreeing with
>anyone telling me that their bread-and-butter is so important to
>them that they are willing to place me and my client at risk,
>just for their protection. Especially, since we aren't thieves
>and we are paying the bills.
In this country, if someone steals our compiler, they will never buy anyway
regardless our prices. Other countries are different. Roughly 30% of the
sales are oversea. We EVEN sell in Russia and China where piracy is so
rampant, it's not funny. Just it is unfair if a vendor ONLY put in copy
protection because they think their clients are thieves otherwise, it is
UNFAIR for a customer to think that's the only reason a vendor chooses to
use some sort of copy protection.
Jon, we have over thousands of ACTIVE users at a given time. You give me a
scenario where I can painlessly update them, minding that some of the
customers are oversea etc. and I will consider it strongly.
>But that's my slant, Richard. I also accept the efforts I'm
>forced to go through, at times. I *do* understand the cautious
>behavior and self-protection instincts. But you can also
>understand that I look for those schemes which are less likely
>to get in my way, should push come to shove. I want control
>over my projects. It's as simple as that.
No disagreement here. Hence we offer choices....
> >Anyway, speaking for ImageCraft only:
> >- if I ever get rich enough to retire, my plan is to release all tools w/o
> >any copy protections etc. BTW, the #1 reason we use the licensing scheme
> >is so that we can upgrade our customers w/o any pain and suffering.
>
>I hope you get that rich. In fact, I hope you get rich enough
>to send me a spare million. ;)
If I get as rich as Bill G, I will sure to send you a million or two.
> >- if I were to get hit over by a truck, there are plans to do #1.
>
>Excellent.
>
> >- if neither is available for whatever reasons, there are painfully
> >obvious ways to run our compilers on any Win32 platform if you whack your
> >brain hard enough to think about it.
>
>Hehe. Hopefully, you'll have a nice instruction sheet on that
>in escrow...
We have employees and lots of distributors. Even hackers on the net who can
tell you. ImageCraft is not a single person company any more :-)
> >Enough said.
>
>Well... maybe.
>
>But thanks much for your point of view. It's enjoyable.
>
>Jon
Let me just reiterate that do not assume we put in copy protection just to
prevent piracy. There are other reasons as well. Mine may be different from
Qudravox or Rowley, but they probably do have other reasons themselves as
well!
// richard <http://www.imagecraft.com>
<http://www.dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo>
Reply by ●June 27, 20032003-06-27
Kris,
Long post; I reply here, but must admit that I feel many others on this
list won't bother to read very far into the post, or even into it at
all.
> I cannot help but notice that, ever since IAR published a
> "benchmark", where RAL's product was claimed to suffer from
> "code bloating", you have been very, very negative towards
> IAR, and openly on this forum. I find that you must be
> consequential and "practice what you preach".
IAR have not published the benchmark, that is the point, yet they still
make claims against other compilers, and not just ours. We continue to
receive reports of the same form from prospective customers which start
"IAR say...", even after taking up the issue with IAR directly.
The benchmark is with their code, in their labs, with their compiler, by
their engineers, and our beta compiler.
Just to put the record straight, TI are aware of benchmarks and there is
an effort to do something about numbers. What will come of it, I cannot
say, it needs all interested parties to boogie, and I just feel it won't
happen.
FWIW, I an IAR customer, too. I'm a Keil customer. I have lots of
compilers here. I use what's appropriate.
> > And yes, of course our software has bugs--what software, apart from
> > trivial applications, doesn't?
>
> Again, to be fair Paul, it appears to me that IAR is not
> granted what you grant upon yourself and other vendors here.
The question is one of "what does a yearly tax gain you?" We've been
pressured to release more quickly; there are good reasons against, as
well as good reasons for.
> Incidently, Crossworks does suffer from "code bloating"
> really when it comes to floats :
Hmm. Were were naive to provide a conforming ANSI C compiler w.r.t.
double where double meant double. As far as I can tell, IAR and TI are
both slightly guilty of running benchmarks comparing code sizes of
programs using the double type. Of course, all other MSP430 compilers
will put in a stunning show against CrossWorks as they all offer 32-bit
doubles, not 64-bit doubles.
> {
> I MUST STRESS HERE, that at the time of the unfavourable IAR
> benchmark on RAL, the main thorn was that IAR had been
> circulating since some time a benchmark where Imagecraft's
> ICC430 was compared to EW430. It is of course an outrage that
> IAR compared a mature USD2,000 + product to a much lower cost
> (early Beta) product of Imagecraft. }
>
> Nevertheless, two wrongs don't make a right.
I'm at a loss as to what the point is here.
> > When you report them to IAR, what is the response for your
> $400+ per
> > year tax? Do you get an immediate fix?
>
> I have reported this error early this year, and I was sent a
> different LIB version (which I thank Paul for) I reported the
> problem persisted, and then the replies disappeared.... I
> have re-requested a few days ago whether the upload on the
> website is still 1.0.2, and I still didn't receive a reply on
> that. In the interim I have uploaded the latest version from
> the URL, and it is an older version than what I have ???
The one on the web site will be the release version, which is the one
that we support.
Also, the question was not about our turnaround on fixes, but on what
IAR would offer for the SUA. It is a question of curiosity, as stated
in the original mail.
v1.1 is a big step up from v1.0. v1.2 will be a bigger step up, believe
me, and we'll be offering something rather special to go with it.
> I'd love it if another CrossWorks user could compile a 5 line
> program I have, and see if they get the same result/error
> that I have ?
You may like to publish the code; you can then try the 1.1 release on
Monday. Or you can keep the code, lest I fix the problem, and try the
program on Monday.
> Finally, I must volunteer that I took some offence to the
> following post :
>
> /********************************************************************/
> Kris,
>
> > > Before the list though. I can't see how you can 'assume'
> > that it took
> > > me 28 days to realise the fault.
> >
> > I meant the other way around (and it was a hypothesis !!).
> The popping
> > windows issue surely would have revealed within a few days of
> > evaluation, and not need extended eval ?? (you referred to
> Imagecraft
> > offering 3 months, and that RAL should offer so too).
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but basic research suggests that
> ImageCraft offer neither 90 day nor 3-month evaluations. All
> MSP430 compiler vendors offer what is becoming an industry
> standard 30 elapsed days evaluation and have done so for as
> long as I care to remember.
>
> I just don't see anything constructive in this Email.
> The phrase "Basic reasearch suggests....", has a clear
> innuendo in my opinion that I am ill-stating something. Also
> bear in mind that you sent me a direct Email 3 minutes before
> that with completely different content. I understand and
> respect that this post might be somewhat ambiguous, and open
> for misinterpretation but I think basic courtesy has it here
> that maybe it would have been better if you hadn't posted
> anything at all. I just don't see the point.
The point was that Tam asserted that ImageCraft currently offer a 30-day
evaluation and understand better what users want. However, point is,
currently they do not.
Tam's original assertion was:
> To be fair, this is something Imagecraft understands better than
> Rowley Associates as the trial period IS 3-months.
The assertion is that currently the evaluation period is three months,
and it's not. The original uses IS which is present tense. It is not
"at one time". I did basic research, visiting Richard's web site, and
got the information.
> Furthermore :
> You state "Correct me if I'm wrong..." - well, as a matter of
> fact, you were wrong ! Richard at Imagecraft readily
> volunteered that Tamar was actually right, and I think when
> revisiting the whole thread where I can somewhat sympathise
> with Tamar (the tampered person :-), and that it would have
> been consequential
> for you to at least apologise somewhat to Tamar, and retract
> it. I think Richard had set a standard there of proper
> conduct/merit, and I really think you should have yourself too, and
> applied basic courtesy, as you would expect yourself.
No, Tam's assertion uses "IS" -- present tense, and the fact is that
currently ImageCraft do not offer a 30-day evaluation.
Richard said:
> This is correct. Our demo is fully functional for 30 days, although we
(and
> sounds like everyone else), extensions on requests. Once a customer
who
> made a purchase mentioned that he used the demo for about 4 months and
I
> asked him how he managed that (w/o using a crack), and he said he just
kept
> asking me for extensions :-)
Kris continues:
> I know this takes up Bandwidth on this forum, but so did some
> of Paul's posts, which I must volunteer at times have had
> somewhat supercilious undertones towards myself,
Pardon? You'll need to fill me in here Kris, the "some of Paul's posts"
means more than one. What do you object to which you haven't alreay
raised?
> and I feel
> compelled to point out that "the underdog" (ie. Tam) deserves
> fair go too as well as some exoneration,
> as we all would expect for ourselves as well.
Exoneration for what? Claming ImageCraft offers a 3 month evalutation
when they currently do not is correct.
> I hope we can rectify any miscommunications Paul, and
> continue our cooperations. I think this constitutes an
> opportunity for you Paul, to demonstrate that you indeed are
> able to address (constructive) criticism, and that at times
> we all make a little mistake and don't apply the same
> standards on others, as we apply to ourselves.
Kris, you know how much development effort and money has gone into
providing the MSP430 product. You know we want it to be perfect, but
it's proven not to be, which is evidenced by the problems aired here.
Sure, we can all concentrate on the problems, but then I can also
concentrate on the problems in other compilers too. I have reported
problems in other vendor's compilers directly to the vendors without
ridiculing them or getting one over in this public forum. However,
after reporting the problem to one vendor, we got a less than cordial
response (actually, not from the vendor!), so have now decided that we
won't be reporting further problems found in competeing products.
-- Paul.
Long post; I reply here, but must admit that I feel many others on this
list won't bother to read very far into the post, or even into it at
all.
> I cannot help but notice that, ever since IAR published a
> "benchmark", where RAL's product was claimed to suffer from
> "code bloating", you have been very, very negative towards
> IAR, and openly on this forum. I find that you must be
> consequential and "practice what you preach".
IAR have not published the benchmark, that is the point, yet they still
make claims against other compilers, and not just ours. We continue to
receive reports of the same form from prospective customers which start
"IAR say...", even after taking up the issue with IAR directly.
The benchmark is with their code, in their labs, with their compiler, by
their engineers, and our beta compiler.
Just to put the record straight, TI are aware of benchmarks and there is
an effort to do something about numbers. What will come of it, I cannot
say, it needs all interested parties to boogie, and I just feel it won't
happen.
FWIW, I an IAR customer, too. I'm a Keil customer. I have lots of
compilers here. I use what's appropriate.
> > And yes, of course our software has bugs--what software, apart from
> > trivial applications, doesn't?
>
> Again, to be fair Paul, it appears to me that IAR is not
> granted what you grant upon yourself and other vendors here.
The question is one of "what does a yearly tax gain you?" We've been
pressured to release more quickly; there are good reasons against, as
well as good reasons for.
> Incidently, Crossworks does suffer from "code bloating"
> really when it comes to floats :
Hmm. Were were naive to provide a conforming ANSI C compiler w.r.t.
double where double meant double. As far as I can tell, IAR and TI are
both slightly guilty of running benchmarks comparing code sizes of
programs using the double type. Of course, all other MSP430 compilers
will put in a stunning show against CrossWorks as they all offer 32-bit
doubles, not 64-bit doubles.
> {
> I MUST STRESS HERE, that at the time of the unfavourable IAR
> benchmark on RAL, the main thorn was that IAR had been
> circulating since some time a benchmark where Imagecraft's
> ICC430 was compared to EW430. It is of course an outrage that
> IAR compared a mature USD2,000 + product to a much lower cost
> (early Beta) product of Imagecraft. }
>
> Nevertheless, two wrongs don't make a right.
I'm at a loss as to what the point is here.
> > When you report them to IAR, what is the response for your
> $400+ per
> > year tax? Do you get an immediate fix?
>
> I have reported this error early this year, and I was sent a
> different LIB version (which I thank Paul for) I reported the
> problem persisted, and then the replies disappeared.... I
> have re-requested a few days ago whether the upload on the
> website is still 1.0.2, and I still didn't receive a reply on
> that. In the interim I have uploaded the latest version from
> the URL, and it is an older version than what I have ???
The one on the web site will be the release version, which is the one
that we support.
Also, the question was not about our turnaround on fixes, but on what
IAR would offer for the SUA. It is a question of curiosity, as stated
in the original mail.
v1.1 is a big step up from v1.0. v1.2 will be a bigger step up, believe
me, and we'll be offering something rather special to go with it.
> I'd love it if another CrossWorks user could compile a 5 line
> program I have, and see if they get the same result/error
> that I have ?
You may like to publish the code; you can then try the 1.1 release on
Monday. Or you can keep the code, lest I fix the problem, and try the
program on Monday.
> Finally, I must volunteer that I took some offence to the
> following post :
>
> /********************************************************************/
> Kris,
>
> > > Before the list though. I can't see how you can 'assume'
> > that it took
> > > me 28 days to realise the fault.
> >
> > I meant the other way around (and it was a hypothesis !!).
> The popping
> > windows issue surely would have revealed within a few days of
> > evaluation, and not need extended eval ?? (you referred to
> Imagecraft
> > offering 3 months, and that RAL should offer so too).
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but basic research suggests that
> ImageCraft offer neither 90 day nor 3-month evaluations. All
> MSP430 compiler vendors offer what is becoming an industry
> standard 30 elapsed days evaluation and have done so for as
> long as I care to remember.
>
> I just don't see anything constructive in this Email.
> The phrase "Basic reasearch suggests....", has a clear
> innuendo in my opinion that I am ill-stating something. Also
> bear in mind that you sent me a direct Email 3 minutes before
> that with completely different content. I understand and
> respect that this post might be somewhat ambiguous, and open
> for misinterpretation but I think basic courtesy has it here
> that maybe it would have been better if you hadn't posted
> anything at all. I just don't see the point.
The point was that Tam asserted that ImageCraft currently offer a 30-day
evaluation and understand better what users want. However, point is,
currently they do not.
Tam's original assertion was:
> To be fair, this is something Imagecraft understands better than
> Rowley Associates as the trial period IS 3-months.
The assertion is that currently the evaluation period is three months,
and it's not. The original uses IS which is present tense. It is not
"at one time". I did basic research, visiting Richard's web site, and
got the information.
> Furthermore :
> You state "Correct me if I'm wrong..." - well, as a matter of
> fact, you were wrong ! Richard at Imagecraft readily
> volunteered that Tamar was actually right, and I think when
> revisiting the whole thread where I can somewhat sympathise
> with Tamar (the tampered person :-), and that it would have
> been consequential
> for you to at least apologise somewhat to Tamar, and retract
> it. I think Richard had set a standard there of proper
> conduct/merit, and I really think you should have yourself too, and
> applied basic courtesy, as you would expect yourself.
No, Tam's assertion uses "IS" -- present tense, and the fact is that
currently ImageCraft do not offer a 30-day evaluation.
Richard said:
> This is correct. Our demo is fully functional for 30 days, although we
(and
> sounds like everyone else), extensions on requests. Once a customer
who
> made a purchase mentioned that he used the demo for about 4 months and
I
> asked him how he managed that (w/o using a crack), and he said he just
kept
> asking me for extensions :-)
Kris continues:
> I know this takes up Bandwidth on this forum, but so did some
> of Paul's posts, which I must volunteer at times have had
> somewhat supercilious undertones towards myself,
Pardon? You'll need to fill me in here Kris, the "some of Paul's posts"
means more than one. What do you object to which you haven't alreay
raised?
> and I feel
> compelled to point out that "the underdog" (ie. Tam) deserves
> fair go too as well as some exoneration,
> as we all would expect for ourselves as well.
Exoneration for what? Claming ImageCraft offers a 3 month evalutation
when they currently do not is correct.
> I hope we can rectify any miscommunications Paul, and
> continue our cooperations. I think this constitutes an
> opportunity for you Paul, to demonstrate that you indeed are
> able to address (constructive) criticism, and that at times
> we all make a little mistake and don't apply the same
> standards on others, as we apply to ourselves.
Kris, you know how much development effort and money has gone into
providing the MSP430 product. You know we want it to be perfect, but
it's proven not to be, which is evidenced by the problems aired here.
Sure, we can all concentrate on the problems, but then I can also
concentrate on the problems in other compilers too. I have reported
problems in other vendor's compilers directly to the vendors without
ridiculing them or getting one over in this public forum. However,
after reporting the problem to one vendor, we got a less than cordial
response (actually, not from the vendor!), so have now decided that we
won't be reporting further problems found in competeing products.
-- Paul.
Reply by ●June 27, 20032003-06-27
Tam,
> I not only feel disrespected, neglected as a customer and very very
> dissappointed in RAL's busniess ethics, but am considering taking up
> Paul's (if the offer still stands) suggested proposal for a full
> refund (listed here somewhere) on my licence for CrossStudio.
Of course the offer still stands. The only proviso, of course, would be
that you remove all copies of CrossStudio from your machines.
-- Paul.
> I not only feel disrespected, neglected as a customer and very very
> dissappointed in RAL's busniess ethics, but am considering taking up
> Paul's (if the offer still stands) suggested proposal for a full
> refund (listed here somewhere) on my licence for CrossStudio.
Of course the offer still stands. The only proviso, of course, would be
that you remove all copies of CrossStudio from your machines.
-- Paul.
Reply by ●June 27, 20032003-06-27
Hi Jonathan,
> Indeed. I have purchased an MSP430 C compiler, rather than try
> and use something else, partly because I like knowing there is
> someone I can call. And, to be honest, I'm very glad there are
> people like you and Michel and others who will reply to a letter
> and help out. I suppose, if someone placed themselves in harm's
> way with gcc and were willing to offer the same levels of
> support with it, I'd consider that option, too.
I'll go "Bridget Jones' Diary" style here ...... NOT !
I recall getting interested in ST9 when it was launched (1995 ?).
I vividly remember calling the number on the "GNU" notice of the C compiler,
and asking what the
"they seek him here, they seek him there" elusive fee was for a year's
support on that
GNU thing ...... (it was a company in the US)
I was told quite bluntly .... USD 10,000
WHAT ? Are they nuts ?
So I guess that one's out the window too Jonathan, heh. :-)
The only good thing, in my opinion, was the frivolous error message of the
command tool :
"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"
Giggle ...........
Kris
> Indeed. I have purchased an MSP430 C compiler, rather than try
> and use something else, partly because I like knowing there is
> someone I can call. And, to be honest, I'm very glad there are
> people like you and Michel and others who will reply to a letter
> and help out. I suppose, if someone placed themselves in harm's
> way with gcc and were willing to offer the same levels of
> support with it, I'd consider that option, too.
I'll go "Bridget Jones' Diary" style here ...... NOT !
I recall getting interested in ST9 when it was launched (1995 ?).
I vividly remember calling the number on the "GNU" notice of the C compiler,
and asking what the
"they seek him here, they seek him there" elusive fee was for a year's
support on that
GNU thing ...... (it was a company in the US)
I was told quite bluntly .... USD 10,000
WHAT ? Are they nuts ?
So I guess that one's out the window too Jonathan, heh. :-)
The only good thing, in my opinion, was the frivolous error message of the
command tool :
"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"
Giggle ...........
Kris
Reply by ●June 27, 20032003-06-27
Get rid of tiered product versions. Raise the price of the package by about
$50, and the only version is the complete version. That keeps still well
within the affordable range. All versions have lifetime upgrade priviledges.
The package comes with email support. Offer 1 year of phone support, or 3
incident calls (ICC's choice). For an additional amount, you can get
unlimited phone support, or a cost-per-call structure.
This allows individuals who cannot afford instant support to still get good
service, and people who are concerned about having instant support a
value-added path.
--John
$50, and the only version is the complete version. That keeps still well
within the affordable range. All versions have lifetime upgrade priviledges.
The package comes with email support. Offer 1 year of phone support, or 3
incident calls (ICC's choice). For an additional amount, you can get
unlimited phone support, or a cost-per-call structure.
This allows individuals who cannot afford instant support to still get good
service, and people who are concerned about having instant support a
value-added path.
--John
Reply by ●June 27, 20032003-06-27
The question is still how do we send out the upgrades? Massive database of
passwords? Email each one individually?
Right now, we say on our lists, here's a new version (or even here's a beta
version). Try it out. No pain in anyone's part.
At 07:16 PM 6/27/2003 -0400, J.C. Wren wrote:
> Get rid of tiered product versions. Raise the price of the
> package by about
>$50, and the only version is the complete version. That keeps still well
>within the affordable range. All versions have lifetime upgrade
>priviledges.
>The package comes with email support. Offer 1 year of phone support, or 3
>incident calls (ICC's choice). For an additional amount, you can get
>unlimited phone support, or a cost-per-call structure.
>
> This allows individuals who cannot afford instant support to
> still get good
>service, and people who are concerned about having instant support a
>value-added path.
>
> --John
>
>On Friday 27 June 2003 18:45 pm, Richard F. Man wrote:
> > Jon, we have over thousands of ACTIVE users at a given time. You give me a
> > scenario where I can painlessly update them, minding that some of the
> > customers are oversea etc. and I will consider it strongly.
>...
// richard <http://www.imagecraft.com>
<http://www.dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo>
passwords? Email each one individually?
Right now, we say on our lists, here's a new version (or even here's a beta
version). Try it out. No pain in anyone's part.
At 07:16 PM 6/27/2003 -0400, J.C. Wren wrote:
> Get rid of tiered product versions. Raise the price of the
> package by about
>$50, and the only version is the complete version. That keeps still well
>within the affordable range. All versions have lifetime upgrade
>priviledges.
>The package comes with email support. Offer 1 year of phone support, or 3
>incident calls (ICC's choice). For an additional amount, you can get
>unlimited phone support, or a cost-per-call structure.
>
> This allows individuals who cannot afford instant support to
> still get good
>service, and people who are concerned about having instant support a
>value-added path.
>
> --John
>
>On Friday 27 June 2003 18:45 pm, Richard F. Man wrote:
> > Jon, we have over thousands of ACTIVE users at a given time. You give me a
> > scenario where I can painlessly update them, minding that some of the
> > customers are oversea etc. and I will consider it strongly.
>...
// richard <http://www.imagecraft.com>
<http://www.dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo>
Reply by ●June 27, 20032003-06-27
Why are there passwords at all? It sounds like you're still thinking
anti-theft here, unless I'm just misunderstanding you. I'd probably put each
version on a passworded web page, and bulk email my legit customers the
password.
But as you've said, the people who are determined not to pay will work around
it. You're counting on legitimate customers to support you, so they've paid
for the product. And hopefully the large corporate contracts are paying a
yearly support contract for instant support.
With the keybreakers that are out there now, you're only slowing the
determined thieves down by a day or two. So why expend the effort at all?
I'm not sure how to morally handle existing product lines. Perhaps the
people who've bought the full-blown version get a complementary year of
instant support. And perhaps the people who bought the limited version can
pay the difference to the new full version, getting only the non-instant
support.
Obviously, converting an existing system is a non-trivial matter. I'm well
aware of that. But eliminating these infernal keys would be a definite
long-term beneft to customers.
I don't have a magic solution for this, I just know what I want as a customer
:)
--John
anti-theft here, unless I'm just misunderstanding you. I'd probably put each
version on a passworded web page, and bulk email my legit customers the
password.
But as you've said, the people who are determined not to pay will work around
it. You're counting on legitimate customers to support you, so they've paid
for the product. And hopefully the large corporate contracts are paying a
yearly support contract for instant support.
With the keybreakers that are out there now, you're only slowing the
determined thieves down by a day or two. So why expend the effort at all?
I'm not sure how to morally handle existing product lines. Perhaps the
people who've bought the full-blown version get a complementary year of
instant support. And perhaps the people who bought the limited version can
pay the difference to the new full version, getting only the non-instant
support.
Obviously, converting an existing system is a non-trivial matter. I'm well
aware of that. But eliminating these infernal keys would be a definite
long-term beneft to customers.
I don't have a magic solution for this, I just know what I want as a customer
:)
--John
Reply by ●June 27, 20032003-06-27
