Lpc2000

At 10:57 AM 5/15/05 +0100, Jane Highland wrote:
>Charles and co,

I'm going to try to take some time to respond to this since I think it 
deserves a thoughtful response and I don't wish this to degenerate into a 
flame war.

>Am I correct that you are just embittered about the way the development
>tools industry is going?

I don't believe so.  My own comments are the result of experience with 
multiple IDEs.  The embedded tools industry is headed in multiple 
directions at once not surprisingly.  Some of those are following the 
desktop trends and some are opposed.

The trends I see
         - a move towards IDEs integrated with the compiler, this matches 
the desktop trends towards monolithic application suites.
         - Dongles, particularly FLEXlm.  This is in opposition to the 
desktop where copy protection was dropped as counter productive years 
ago.  Interestingly enough, I've started seeing hints that embedded tool 
makers are having second thoughts as well.
         - No more documentation.  A trend echoed in both the desktop and 
open-source communities.  The belief seems to be that if the help file is 
not sufficient a PDF file will be.  Often the documentation disappears at 
about the same time that dongles are added.

>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.

Well, I do use a modern IDE, I suspect Charles does too.  The core of my 
IDE is a modern editor.  It allows me to edit all of my source code for 
multiple target platforms, calls make to rebuild and then assists me in 
finding any errors from the resulting analysis, generation, compile and 
link passes. I've tried a number of compiler included IDEs and never lasted 
more than a few days before their inadequacies got to me.  The only 
exception was a compiler that included an OEM'd commercial editor at about 
the same time as I was looking for a replacement to the current editor I 
was using.  One of the problems I have is that if I used IDEs that came 
with the compiler I'd have to use multiple different IDEs all with there 
own quirks etc... and then integrate in the code generation, static 
analysis tools and revision management tools for each one.  I prefer not 
having to stop and think, 'how do I start the process with this one?'.

>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.

Oh, come now.  Just because I have my own preferences for Editor.  Whether 
we are carpenters, machinists or developers we should know and cherish our 
tools.  A quality familiar tool becomes an extension of oneself.  So it is 
with editors.  Just because I prefer an IDE that doesn't happen to come 
with compiler doesn't make me an evil persona misleading the young ;)


>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.

Actually the main reason I started using GNU make was that it was difficult 
to find a decent build environment.  I had been using Borland's make and 
needed a replacement that worked with multiple compilers, code generators 
and other tools.  GNU make fit the bill, no other tool even came 
close.  This need to support multiple compilers may be a big part of the 
difference between our views of compiler included IDEs.  BTW, how have you 
integrated lint with your IDE?  Most of the compiler included IDEs I've 
seen don't have very good provision for that, much less for various code 
generators.

As long as you are happy with the compiler includes IDE go ahead, editors 
are as much a matter of personal preference as they are of any objective 
reality.  I'll keep using a single IDE for my projects, sigh at what I see 
as a waste of resources in the IDE included with the compiler for the 
latest micro and move on.

I don't expect compiler companies to stop developing a myriad of interfaces 
and IDEs but I do expect them to keep including a fully functional command 
line so I can keep using my favourite tools.

At some point I expect I'll give Richard's wizards a try to see if they are 
any better than the ones I've tried so far.

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/