Hi Paul,

>> Would that be the 56800 or the 56300?  The
56600 looks like the bastard
child: a processor Motorola can't give away (the M.CORE) together
with a
DSP from hell.  What a nightmare!  No wonder they purchased Metrowerks,
somebody has to produce tools for these chips. <<

It would  be the 56F800/E stuff. 

>> I do have a 56800 eval kit in the office;
I've even tried out the
Metrowerks stuff.  I am not a fan of the IDE at all, it must be said,
but it does have its supporters.  Besides, it's award winning (as it
says on the Metrowerks website) so at least a panel of judges liked it
at some point. <<

This is something my friend and I often talk and joke about. He has a daily 
mantra of "Metrowerks is shite" and I simply cannot disagree with him.


I have spoken to one engineer who thinks it was developed for the Power PC and 
they've just ported it for all sorts of other platforms. Admittedly I know 
nothing at all about writing C compilers, but I wouldn't be surprised if 
that's one of the reasons some of its library routines are hilariously 
innefficient and slow. 

The IDE part of it us just a joke. Even Atmel's completely free Studio
wipes 
the floor with it. How on earth it could ever win an award is completely 
beyond me. I've (honestly) yet to find one single person who rates the IDE.

As the Germans would say, it's probably all "marketing bullshit."

>> Will I do tools for it?  Probably not, not
unless there is a good reason
to.  As Freescale & Metrowerks are tied at the hip, it's
difficult to
see Freescale fostering a 3P (compiler) tools network as Metrowerks can
bottom the price of any tool. <<

My tongue was (at least) half in my cheek when I suggested you do tools for 
it! I have heard whispers that one other  compiler vendor who does a lot of 
Freescale tools is going to do one, but they don't exactly offer good VFM  
like Rowley does. 
 
It's a shame, because the DSP itself is really rather good. 

Cheers,

Rob

Robert, 

> >> Would that be the 56800 or the 56300? 
The 56600 looks like the 
> >> bastard
> child: a processor Motorola can't give away (the M.CORE) 
> together with a DSP from hell.  What a nightmare!  No wonder 
> they purchased Metrowerks, somebody has to produce tools for 
> these chips. <<
> 
> It would  be the 56F800/E stuff. 

I don't think there's a slash--isn't it just 56F800E?

> This is something my friend and I often talk and
joke about. 
> He has a daily mantra of "Metrowerks is shite" and I simply 
> cannot disagree with him. 
> 
> I have spoken to one engineer who thinks it was developed for 
> the Power PC and they've just ported it for all sorts of 
> other platforms.

Metrowerks originally offered Pascal for the Mac and went on to offer
Modula-2 for the MIPS.  Where are they now?  Apple turned to Metrowerks
as they had a PowerPC C compiler, licensed/purchased from an Eastern
European source, IIRC.  Metrowerks then saved Apple's arse in the early
PowerMac days because Apple's Developer Workbench didn't cut the
mustard.  Today, of course, Apple prefer you code with NextStep-derived
stuff and Objective C, but support C++/Java development using their very
nice XCode IDE.  I must say, I do rather like XCode.

> Admittedly I know nothing at all about 
> writing C compilers, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's 
> one of the reasons some of its library routines are 
> hilariously innefficient and slow. 

Metrowerks also purchased Hiware (the Swiss company) to get all those
8-bit compilers Hiware offered for Motorola processors (almost
exclusively).  The two separate lineages have not merged successfully,
last time I cared to look.

-- Paul.

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 11:01:15 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>Yes, we could always put in an extra optimisation,
but the 
>attitudes of the majority of our customers who are not active on 
>newsgroups and mailing lists favour stability over the last 10% 
>of performance.

It's not necessarily an "either or" issue.  Certainly, you are
already providing
optimizations.  And you don't say that it's not stable.  So the two
are, at
least in principle, compatible to a degree.  The only question is where the
lines are drawn.  It's not always the dilemma your comment may suggest.

>It has taken me nearly three years to get a 
>client with an 850,000+ LOC PC application to drop parallel 
>development of the old non-VFX chassis and VFX chassis. The 
>final key was to make the debugger GUI on the new system look 
>very much the same as the old GUI. The front-end matters 
>commercially.

Of course.  I don't think anyone has said otherwise.  But the effort there
is
effort not spent on the core compiler technology.  No denying that, either.

Jon

>> I don't think there's a slash--isn't it just
56F800E? <<

There are two (similar) families. The older 56F800 and the 56F800E which they 
tend to lump together as "56F800/E".

>> Metrowerks also purchased Hiware (the Swiss
company) to get all those
8-bit compilers Hiware offered for Motorola processors (almost
exclusively).  The two separate lineages have not merged successfully,
last time I cared to look. << 

Yep, this is indeed what happened. The Hiware based Codewarrior is different. 
It works more like the IAR stuff where it opens up a separate window for 
debugging, The DSP Codewarrior is far more integrated. The Hiware based 
debugging environment is a lot better, but I still don't think it's as
good 
as Atmel Studio! 

Hi Al,

Would that be $200 US or Aussie?? Doesn't matter, I'll pay it 
anyway! Maybe you could have like online classes & stuff? ;-)

Gert

--- In msp430@msp4..., onestone <onestone@b...> wrote:
> Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 23:00:05 +0930, Al wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Hey Jon, are you sure I didn't write this? ;@}
> > 
> > 
> > hehe.  Sometimes, it's nice to sing a duet instead of solo, eh?
> 
> With my voice? Seriously though I don't think it's a competition 
of any 
> kind, and, despite what some may choose to read
into my comments, 
I 
> really don't care what skill level people
are, I don't respond any 
> differently to them, except, perhaps I am more 'boisterous' with 
those I 
> feel are a bit more knowledgable, on the premise
that, being old 
hands 
> they won't take offence at the odd little
joke here and there.
> 
> >>This expresses my views, as most people here would know. Few 
might know 
> >>that I love C. But not for most of the
work I do. I see it as a 
rapid 
> >>prototyping tool, when testing out
concepts on a PC, or the tool 
of 
> >>choice for windows apps that talk to my
embedded designs. I 
think the 
> >>ONLY issue with embedded systems choice of
language is the 
individuals 
> >>skill set and experience.
> > 
> > 
> > It really seems like that.
> > 
> > There's a phrase I keep in mind, "To a man with a chainsaw, 
everything looks
> > like a tree."  This concept operates on
several levels.  In one 
sense, it means
> > that when you are familiar with something,
that's what you use.  
In anther
> > sense, it means that when you are ONLY
familiar with a single 
tool, then you
> > don't reach for other tools because you
either don't know about 
them are aren't
> > comfortable with them.
> > 
> > This applies to assembly writing.  (1) If you aren't fluent with 
it, then you
> > will quite simply fully subscribe to the idea
that C compilers 
are "just as
> > good, if not better" tools and, of
course, you will also choose 
them for every
> > application you face, regardless of its
needs.  (2) If you are 
fluent with a
> > number of tools, then you can better select
the appropriate tool 
for the job.
> 
> > 
> > In short, a skilled professional programmer, like a skilled 
woodworker, should
> > be quite competent with a very wide variety
of tools and able to 
select the
> > proper tool for the tasks at hand.  For those
willing to be more 
limited, they
> > will have more limited options available and
the resulting 
products will show
> > this fact, just as a limited
woodworker's "roll top" desk won't 
be quite the
> > same as one from a more broadly skilled
professional.  (Of 
course, both can
> > build one.)
> 
> This has been another of my mantras for a long time. earn as many 
> different systems and tools as you might reasonably need to, study 
those 
> which you see no use for if you have the time,
then you'll find 
yourself 
> in a position to make informed decisions with
regard to 
development.
> 
> > My mission is to encourage programmers to be more fully 
competent, not to tell
> > folks to "use assembler" or
"use C."  That choice should be made 
by the person
> > "on the ground," not by me.
> 
> I don't so much have a mission. But the reason I post here is in 
the 
> hope that I might encourage others to have as much
fun as I have 
in this 
> field. You can really enjoy your work while still
taking it 
seriously, 
> you don't have to be serious for your work to
be. I try to strike 
the 
> balance between the deathly boring academic
approach, and the yee-
hawww 
> cowboy approach.
> 
> >>The simple fact is that most people coming out 
> >>of uni these days are C or C++ oriented (by the way that surely

has to 
> >>be C++; ).
> > 
> > 
> > Yeah.  I've taught C and C++ as an undergrad professor, as
well 
as computer
> > architecture, operating systems, and
concurrent programming 
classes.
> 
> I'm thinking of starting a training course. One day only. "How to

do 
> serious shit with micros in 1 day". Hardware,
tools, video and 
beginners 
> guide to the MSP430 (written by moi) for something
like $200. Not 
to 
> make a living, just because I see at least a
hundred posts a week 
on 
> usenet asking how to get started. The aim
ISN'T to make instant 
> engineers, but to show people simply how much fun you can have, 
and give 
> them leads into studying the basics.
> 
> > I remember one of my students (happened many times, but I 
remember the first
> > time better) coming to me about how
"difficult" the classes 
were.  It turns out
> > that she had been trying to choose between
_accounting_ and 
_programming_ as a
> > profession.  Took me back, for a second.
> 
> They both use numbers don't they? ;@} Or was it purely based on 
assumed 
> income?
> 
> > 
> > But then, I guess, programming has become a big tent these 
days.  Under it, you
> > have all manner of hopes and people.  For me,
it's a love.  But 
I realize that
> > there are only a few people like me, anymore.
 In my day, folks 
with a personal
> > love for physics, math, and electronics made
up a much higher 
percentage.
> 
> We are of the same ilk, now it. My father had me enrolled for med 
> school, I was only 16 but finished high school 3 months before my 
16th 
> birthday. My brother was at the same uni doing
physics, so I 
stayed with 
> him for a while. Dropped in on a few lectures,
couldn't imagine 
anything 
> more boring to do for the rest of my life, so
buggered off round 
europe 
> for a year then joined the army's engineering
school. For the last 
20 
> years much of my work has been in the area of
medicine or 
biometrics, 
> funny old world?
> 
> 
> > 
> > But there are those seriously struggling to decide between 
corporate marketing
> > and computer programming and I understand the
"one tool" 
mentality.  It's a job,
> > that's all.  Not a love.  For those,
they will rightly focus on 
what skills the
> > programming marketplace is buying and learn
that and only so 
much of it as they
> > will get paid well for.  They will have
regular outdoor 
barbecues, pool parties,
> > and hot tub get-togethers, I suppose, and
will clean behind 
their TV and mow
> > their lawns, too.
> 
> It's sad. I could earn a bundle writing java apps, or VB, but i'd

go 
> nuts. Let the grandchildren leave their toys
around for me to fall 
over, 
>   trade the hot tub for a hydro-therapy pool, call
the garden 'the 
> aussie bush look' and sweep everything behind the TV (hang on, 
it's on 
> the wall!!!!) I'd rather have fun.
> 
> > 
> > Oh, well.
> 
> Good song that was.
> 
> Al

Cheers Jon. Hopefully we will get to meet up some time. That goes for a 
lot of the guys here. It would be nice to put faces to names.

Al

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 09:05:52 +0930, Al wrote:
> 
> 
>>Almost the opposite to my plan. I visualise something more like lego 
>>Mindworks on steroids. Give them a proven module with lots of possible 
>>scenarios. Bolted together code modules. A basic grounding on the parts 
>>of a system, then let them play. Everyone gets to pick their own 
>>project, nothing dumb like led flashers.
> 
> 
> Actually, that's not far from what's needed with a week-long,
too.  There's so
> much to cover and so little real time even in a week.  The difference here
might
> be that each of them would get to do more of those projects -- not just
one.
> 
> I'd probably divvy them up into teams of 3 for the week and put them
in modest
> competitions with each other.  A case where everyone wins, I mean, not
anything
> mean-spirited or the like.  Something akin to table-top battles where I
figure
> out different categories so that everyone gets a prize for what they did
right.
> 
> 
>>perhaps one guy builds a 
>>receiver/graph display, while another builds a sensor, transmitter.
> 
> 
> Yup, great!
> 
> 
>>At 
>>the end they get to trade code. Run the course at home, but 
>>non-residential. I decided not to move further outback, too hard to get 
>>to hospital when I need it.
> 
> 
> Understood.
> 
> 
>>So I'm building a new house locally. 4 
>>floors, about 660sq.mtr.
> 
> 
> Sounds wonderful!
> 
> (That's a bit bigger than my current home (460 m^2) on 2 2/3 hectares.
  I also
> have a shop with 120 m^2, though.  And I am out breaking my poor back on
site
> prep to build a barn this summer, with about 220 m^2 in it.  When I say
"I'm
> building it" I mean *I* am building it -- which is to be
differentiated from to
> idea of "having it built for me."  Something my bones remind me
of, each day.
> But this isn't the place I'm talking about, earlier, which is
perhaps 10 years
> away, yet.  Your plans are much more close at hand.)
> 
> 
>>The courses will run in the 180sq mtr 'play 
>>room, under the house. If I go that way. I'm also thinking to
perhaps 
>>sell the course on its own. Who knows. a lot depends on what happens 
>>when I go to court later this year.
> 
> 
> I hope it goes VERY WELL.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 

Stephen Pelc wrote:

<vasectomy>

> Yes, we could always put in an extra optimisation,
but the 
> attitudes of the majority of our customers who are not active on 
> newsgroups and mailing lists favour stability over the last 10% 
> of performance. It has taken me nearly three years to get a 
> client with an 850,000+ LOC PC application to drop parallel 
> development of the old non-VFX chassis and VFX chassis. The 
> final key was to make the debugger GUI on the new system look 
> very much the same as the old GUI. The front-end matters 
> commercially.
> 

I have to agree with this. I think that vast majority of people here 
don't want, or need that last extra mile, the marathon is enough 
already. I think the same personality trait that sees people actively 
posting, is probably related to the one that makes them bullish about 
the way they design things, hyperactivity, too much coffee, excess of 
red cordial or whatever.

Al

Hi Gert.

here is basically what I have in mind.

A PCB based on the F1611, or F1612.
RF based around Nordic RF nRF905 parts
1.5V to 4.5V battery input.
MAX1674 DC/Dc switcher.
8MHz and 32.768kHz crystals
One dedicated 8 pin analog port with active clamps for ESD and 
overvoltage. 4 channels set up for 0-3V input, 4 channels set up for 
0-5V input.
6 pin dedicated timer port, configurable to capture/compare.
2 PWM channels
system heartbeat.
8 pin buffered input only port
8 pin buffered output only port (50mA drive)
8 assignable buttons
probably a 20x4 character display.

Code in simple black box modules, as called functions. for example 
modules for timer B might be:-

capture edgeN
capture pulseN
capture periodN
capture duty cycleN

Modules for the RF might be:-

send packet to ADDR
set node to ADDR
Enable READ

Source supplied, with full explanation of function.

A complete description of the instruction set, with code examples of 
every address mode, and when and why they might be used.

An explanation of how to achieve certain results. For example:-

chap 1 problem. A.

I have a sensor that operates from 5V that has a signal output from 
0-5V. How do I read the signal.

Then later:-

Chap 4 problem A.

I need to read a 0-5V signal 1000 times a second,store the min/max and 
produce a histogram every 60 seconds.

I haven't thought it all out yet. I aim to make the 'tasks'
freeform, ie 
do it when you need to actually use it. But plan to use a lot of the 
posts from here and eelsewhere as examples of what it seems beginners 
want. I aim to keep it virtually theory free, no complex equations. My 
aim with the first course is to stimulate interest in micros, by doing 
something fun immediately, make this stuff fun again, and hopefully whet 
the appetite enough to make the effort to learn no effort.

All of the above will be in *.pdf files on a CD. I'm also hoping to have 
a DVD video of the course, where certain things are explained, and 
demostrated, say on a scope. Like debug technique etc. The course is the 
warmer to tempt people to read on.

Whatever it costs to put the materials together I hope to make the 
course $100 more. I figure the end cost will be around $200-$250 AUS, 
about $140 -$175 US. Of course you'll need to buy an expensive ticket to 
fly here. Unless interest makes it worthwhile getting on aplane, but I 
doubt that.

Anyway I estimate it will take me until January to put the course 
together completely, which fits nicely (I hope) with 1611 availability.

Al

Hi Stephen, most C compile companies, besides the big ones like IAR, 
GreenHills, ARM etc. are usually pretty small. The core developers usually 
numbers just a small handful. It is not an easy business, but a living can 
be managed.

At 03:01 AM 8/9/2004, Stephen Pelc wrote:
>Now the commercial part. I've spoken to many people supplying
>compilers for minority languages and embedded systems. I know of
>no small compiler shop that makes the majority of its living
>from writing and selling compilers. The majority of us make our
>profits from the consultancy jobs that come because we write
>compilers. Our VFX development costs compare with Paul's, and we
>support seven CPU architectures.
>

// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please 
use richard@rich...) 

Ron,
Thanks for the recomendation.  I'm leaning that way, to CrossWorks 
that is.  Wow this thread gets a bit wacky later on.
alien

--- In msp430@msp4..., Robert Wood <robert.wood@a...> wrote:
> >> Which C compiler would you recomend?
> I've narrowed it down to these two as they are the ones which 
> support doubles and long longs. <<
> 
> I've used both and would unreservedly recommend the Crossworks. It 
works very 
> well, the code is very, very easy to port from IAR
and Crossworks 
is much 
> cheaper. 
> 
> Also, technical help is much better from Rowley I have found. Very 
responsive. 
> Rowley have got this USB JTAG interface to go with
Crossworks as 
well which 
> apparently is much quicker than the parallel port
one. 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Rob