Developing/compiling software
in [Embedded]
|
From: ChrisQ on 23 Sep 2009 08:23 Chris H wrote: > > If that were the case there would be a problem but so far most of the > open source compilers are no where near as good as the top commercial > ones. > I'm sorry, but you need to be more specific in terms of *how* they are better. You're not selling soap powder to the 19th c unwashed here. If we are discussing Keil, it's not so much the compiler, but the linker, which seems to do magic in terms of it's overlay analysis and ability to make use of constrained ram and xdata space. A btter solution might have been to do more work upfront in terms of design and cpu choice to avoid the problem in the first place. Great for legacy hardware but not necessarily relevant if you're starting from scratch. So what else is there and how about other vendors and architectures. What's so inferior about the gnu toolchain, for example ?. > >> means a diminishing client base and less money for development. Unless >> they can come up with a revised business model, they seem condemned to >> niche markets and long term decline. If you want evidence, compare the >> diversity of tool vendors a decade ago with the same now. > > True... So eventually programmers will be expected to produce their own > tools and RTOS on their own time at their own expense. Some already do :-), but that's taking the argument to absurd limits. Of course, you write some tools over the years, but buy in the stuff that would be uneconomic to develop yourself. One of the great strengths of open source is that it shares the cost and time to develop complex applications among the many with the result available for all to use. It potentially brings together resources that would be not possible for individual companies. > > Who funds these open source programmers? They have to eat. Some people are still altruistic, believe it or not and do it for fun or the intellectual challenge while keeping their day job. Others want to be remembered for contributing something for the common good, rather than merely for commercial gain. Any number of reasons. Not to say that there's not serious money involved now. IBM, Hp / Compaq and many others fund development and the likes of Redhat, Code Sourcery and Kpit Cummins package up the results to sell and provide support. The truth is that the marketplace for tools has changed forever. How will traditional tool vendors like Keil and IAR survive in the long term ?. > > The problem is the main users of the open source tools are not the ones > who are producing them... > How is this a problem ?... Regards, Chris
From: Grant Edwards on 23 Sep 2009 10:25 On 2009-09-23, Lodewicus Maas <wicus.maas(a)gmail.com> wrote: > OK. So Keil is NOT an option anymore > . > The Demo/Eval version can only compile up to a max of 2K - which I reached > already. I then requested a quote from the local suppliers of Keil software, > and the quote is ... > . > . > I hope you're sitting ... > . > . > . > R 39,335.81 ( this is equal to 5,326.93 USD) - for a single user license > . > . > My whole outlook on life is "value for money", and I don't invest in > anything if this requirement is not met, but unfortunately there is no way > in which I can justify this as a hobbiest > . > I'm now busy looking at ImageCraft > . > The "doors" keep on closing, but eventually I'll get there. Have you thought about using an AVR or MSP430 or something less brain-dead (for which free/cheap tools are available)? -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! This PIZZA symbolizes at my COMPLETE EMOTIONAL visi.com RECOVERY!!
From: Grant Edwards on 23 Sep 2009 10:29 On 2009-09-23, ChrisQ <meru(a)devnull.com> wrote: >> Who funds these open source programmers? They have to eat. > > Some people are still altruistic, believe it or not and do it for fun or > the intellectual challenge while keeping their day job. Others want to > be remembered for contributing something for the common good, rather > than merely for commercial gain. Any number of reasons. Not to say that > there's not serious money involved now. IBM, Hp / Compaq and many others > fund development and the likes of Redhat, Code Sourcery and Kpit Cummins > package up the results to sell and provide support. Some of the CPU vendors (Hitachi, Atmel, Altera) fund much of the initial gcc port and then provide support for the community. Unfortunately, others (like TI) appear to actively sabotage free tools. They don't succeed in hindering the tool development much, but they do manage to annoy their customers. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! I just heard the at SEVENTIES were over!! And visi.com I was just getting in touch with my LEISURE SUIT!!
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky on 23 Sep 2009 11:53 Chris H wrote: > Who funds these open source programmers? They have to eat. There is a big difference in the philosophy of the self-employed and the employees: An employee hates his job and tries to do something beautiful on his own for the sake of it. Self-employed tries to make money of everything. > The problem is the main users of the open source tools are not the ones > who are producing them... One of the main problems of any tools is that the one who makes them is not the one who uses them. The more sophisticated the tools are, the bigger is the problem. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
From: Grant Edwards on 23 Sep 2009 12:07
On 2009-09-23, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > > Chris H wrote: > > >> Who funds these open source programmers? They have to eat. > > There is a big difference in the philosophy of the self-employed and the > employees: An employee hates his job and tries to do something beautiful > on his own for the sake of it. Self-employed tries to make money of > everything. > >> The problem is the main users of the open source tools are not >> the ones who are producing them... In my experience the producers of open-source tools _do_ use them. It's just that not all of the users are producers. > One of the main problems of any tools is that the one who > makes them is not the one who uses them. The more > sophisticated the tools are, the bigger is the problem. IMO, the problem is even worse for commericial tools where it's quite obvious that in many cases the producers do not (nor have they ever attempted to) use the tools. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! HUMAN REPLICAS are at inserted into VATS of visi.com NUTRITIONAL YEAST ... |