Exact match. Not showing close matches.
'[OT] How to compete with free GCC C compiler'
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 2:47 AM, Walter Banks <bytecraft.com> wrote: walter
> It has not been hard to compete with free software. The
> performance increase and support that is provided with
> our commercial tools is worth the price. The economics
> per seat of our tools is about the loaded cost of two man
> days. The question becomes is the benefit that commercial
> tools provides worth the cost compared to the cost of
> maintaining and supporting free tools.
> Thirty years later our customers think it is.
Interestingly this is another entry from ImageCraft.
"The 32-bit Solution
For the 32-bit, we already have an ARM/Thumb compiler and the Propeller
C compiler. Nothing needs to be done about them. However, it does not make
sense for us to compete with the free GCC on potentially new targets such
as the AVR32 and the ARM Cortex. As our resource is limited, in this space,
we will leverage GCC and give commercial users a better solution by
integrating GCC with our simple to use IDE and Dinkumware’s rock solid
C/C++/EC++ Library. This eliminates any possible encumberment for the
users from LGPL, thus providing values to our customers. This also frees
up resource so that we can work on software stacks (e.g. eMOS, SD/File
System, etc.) for the targets, giving our customers a complete solution.
Or may be even porting to OSX or Linux etc.
We will continue to keep our pricing competitive and tools easy to use.
GCC presents a challenge, but then again, each challenge presents an
opportunity. Life is never boring."
So they can compete effectively with GCC on the 8-bit front
(avr-gcc) and 16bit (mspgcc). But with 32bit MCUs, they do
not seem to want to compete with gcc but rather use
gcc+non-free libraries, just like Rowley Associates.
In a way, Microchip is doing similar things with MPLAB
C30 and C32.
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2009
, 2010 only
- New search...