Lpc2000

At 06:45 AM 5/13/05 +0200, 42Bastian Schick wrote:
>Robert
>
> > Generally I want a pretty utilitarian compiler.  Command line driven, no
> > IDE, the smallest number of extensions possible, startup source code,
> > bullet-proof code generation, a companion assembler and the best
> > optimizer
> > possible.  I don't need or particularly want interrupt support, in-line
> > assembler, wizards or keywords to provide access to some particular micro
> > feature (usually I only need access to such features for a very (very)
> > small portion of the code and that can be easily done in assembly).  I
> > will
> > avoid if at all possible, dongles be they hardware or software,compilers
> > that only allow access to assembly via in-line assembly, compilers w/o
> > linkers and compilers w/o a command line that provides access to all of
> > the
> > compiler options.  I already have a good editor and a good make and I
> > don't
> > need another one with it's own new set of interface prejudices forced
> > upon
> > me.
>
>I agree on this, but for selling a GUI is the thing. Even better an IDE.

Yep, I don't expect vendors to stop providing IDEs.  As long as they leave 
a fully functional command line I won't squeal too much although I do 
begrudge the wasted effort.  I sometimes wonder how many editors they think 
I need.

The only decent IDE I've ever seen was Tasking's.  They OEM'ed 
Codewright.  If you already had a good and familiar editor though that is 
still just a waste.

>A simple makefile-line:
>
>sconf.c : hello-phyCore2294.xml
>         sconf -c $<

A man after my own heart :)

>Just the 2cents from an emacs/make addict :-)

Emacs led to Brief which led me to Codewright and now that Borland has 
killed both of those ....

Robert


" 'Freedom' has no meaning of itself.  There are always restrictions,   be 
they legal, genetic, or physical.  If you don't believe me, try to chew a 
radio signal. "  -- Kelvin Throop, III
http://www.aeolusdevelopment.com/