Lpc2000

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Jane Highland <janehighland@y...> 
wrote:
> Charles and co,
> 
> Am I correct that you are just embittered about the way the 
development 
> tools industry is going?
> 
> I think you are are totally wrong on the subject of IDEs, and I 
don't 
> believe you've ever used a modern IDE  properly on a real project 
(from 
> start, to completion), or would ever want to.
> 
> You should not be sending the wrong signals to younger generation 
> programmers who are getting used to IDE based products from birth 
(well 
> pretty soon in any case). Please stop this nonsense.
> 
> Here's what I think you should do:
> Try out Rowley Associates CrossStudio**** for a couple of 
projects. Let 
> everyone know at LPC2000 how you get on, and whether you still 
think 
> IDE's are waste of time.  You have no excuse, because there is a 
30 day 
> evaluation of the FULL package available from the Rowley site 
which you 
> can try out:
> 
> http://www.rowley.co.uk/arm/index.htm
> 
> Where I work, our R&D team have just completed a number of fairly 
> complicated projects (450K code) using the above tools, with 
hundreds of 
> modules, where we needed non standard linker scripts for various 
run 
> time environments. It's was all doable within the IDE, and saved 
in 
> project file. We can rebuild a complete project (from CVS) and 
load it 
> into a chip via JTAG with a single click. It's like typing in the 
name 
> of a batch file at the command prompt, but quicker. We can 
optionally 
> connect a debugger (after the code has started running!) just to 
see 
> what's happening - more difficult from a command line I expect.
> 
> Yes, we've all done the GNU tools makefile, linker scripts etc, 
and run 
> them from a batch file stuff etc, I myself was a die hard command 
line 
> developer for years - but what a pain, and waste of time. It made 
we 
> feel like a hippy. Remember, makefiles, linker scripts etc were 
the 
> things which put many engineers off from using GNU tools, while 
IDEs 
> have enabled engineers to adopt GNU based tools more readily.
> 
> As engineers we should be concentrating on delivering commercially 
and 
> technically successful projects, striving to save on development 
time, 
> but not spending too much time  pondering about what's under the 
hood of 
> a compiler suite. (Though I am not necessarily saying one should 
have 
> blind faith in dev tools, and not take note of what is being 
generated!!!)
> 
> This is why we have IDEs. They focus engineers on one thing: The 
project.
> 
> ****[By the way I am not a 'Rowley' sales agent. It's just that 
Rowley 
> is a very good example of how an IDE should work. We evaluated 
IAR, Keil 
> and others, but  found Rowley to have the richest set of 
development 
> tools within one development suite, but at a fraction of the cost 
(£500) 
> of the competition. We went for Rowlay approximately nine months 
ago, 
> and have never looked back]
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Jane
>  

Hello, I didn't have time yet to really work with LPC, but there's 
also DEV-C++ (http://www.bloodshed.net/dev/devcpp.html), wich is 
free and seems to be a really nice IDE, if you download only the 
executable it could be use with GNUARM..