I am in the early stages of writing some development tools for the
PIC, and would like to know if there is any prefered development
platform.
I have the resources to go either for straight DOS, or for Windows.
and the amount of work is about the same either way.
There seems to be a move towards windows with everything these days.
I do not want to start a "This OS is better than that OS" discussion,
but would like some indication to what is more likely to be used for
PIC development.
>Hi Pic'ers
>
>I am in the early stages of writing some development tools for the
>PIC, and would like to know if there is any prefered development
>platform.
>
>I have the resources to go either for straight DOS, or for Windows.
>and the amount of work is about the same either way.
>
>There seems to be a move towards windows with everything these days.
>I do not want to start a "This OS is better than that OS" discussion,
>but would like some indication to what is more likely to be used for
>PIC development.
>
>
>Thanks
>
>Ivan Hofsajer
>
>
Why don't you make both. A nice way for building an application is to
split up the platform dependent and the platform independent software.
Ivan Hofsajer wrote:
>
> Hi Pic'ers
>
> I am in the early stages of writing some development tools for the
> PIC, and would like to know if there is any prefered development
> platform.
> (&etc.)
The tide has turned... do it for windows &/or macs. Everybody I know
uses the existing dos tools in dos compatibility windows; I have my
editor set up for a bunch of compilers & assemblers including the PIC
stuff, so that I can go from the editor to the assembler to the debugger
to the programmer without leaving any of them; I run my logic analyzer
in another dos window & I can switch amongst them while they're all hot.
Anyone can do this with existing tools almost for free, so redesigning
any of this capability is a losing proposition.
Almost all of Time Tech's customers end up running our dos based stuff
in the above manner, so we recently took the opportunity to skip a set
of revisions to the dos user interface and implement the windows version
first. Its going to save us several months in production & testing time.
If we get the expected migration of the dos customers we'll never
implement the revisions for that platform.
O.K., I sent this once & it never made it. I'll try one more time. This
has been happening regularly; none of the last bunch of replies I've
made have made it to the list. If anyone has some comment, I'd
appreciate it.
__________________________________
(Re: development platforms.. )
The tide has turned... do it for windows &/or macs. Everybody I know
uses the existing dos tools in dos compatibility windows; I have my
editor set up for a bunch of compilers & assemblers including the PIC
stuff, so that I can go from the editor to the assembler to the debugger
to the programmer without leaving any of them; I run my logic analyzer
in another dos window & I can switch amongst them while they're all hot.
Anyone can do this with existing tools almost for free, so redesigning
any of this capability is a losing proposition.
Almost all of Time Tech's customers end up running our dos based stuff
in the above manner, so we recently took the opportunity to skip a set
of revisions to the dos user interface and implement the windows version
first. Its going to save us several months in production & testing time.
If we get the expected migration of the dos customers we'll never
implement the revisions for that platform.
>
>O.K., I sent this once & it never made it. I'll try one more time. This
>has been happening regularly; none of the last bunch of replies I've
>made have made it to the list. If anyone has some comment, I'd
>appreciate it.
>
--
err... I got your original message and this one.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew M Errington Tel: +44 1524 593678
Microcomputer Consultant Fax: +44 1524 844011
The Computer Centre Mobile (Orange): 0976 243931
Lancaster University spam_OUTa.erringtonTakeThisOuTlancaster.ac.uk
Lancaster LA1 4YW www.lancs.ac.uk/people/cpaame/cpaame.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"A dog is not just for Christmas, there may be some left for
sandwiches on Boxing Day" - Vladimir Illich Ulyanov 1920
> The tide has turned... do it for windows &/or macs. Everybody I know
> uses the existing dos tools in dos compatibility windows; I have my
> editor set up for a bunch of compilers & assemblers including the PIC
> stuff, so that I can go from the editor to the assembler to the debugger
> to the programmer without leaving any of them; I run my logic analyzer
> in another dos window & I can switch amongst them while they're all hot.
> Anyone can do this with existing tools almost for free, so redesigning
> any of this capability is a losing proposition.
Ivan Hofsajer wrote:
>
> Hi Pic'ers
>
> I am in the early stages of writing some development tools for the
> PIC, and would like to know if there is any prefered development
> platform.
I don't want to get under a flame attack but i use win95
simply because it worx and I don't have to understand how and why
i can spend my time on pics
but U can use multiple dos windows to make subs sim testing programming paralell
if u make some *.bat files as buttons on screen it will make your job really
easy timothyKILLspambekes.hungary.net
bye
charley
I think Jim's and Prezemek's messages really identify where the Software
development is going.
I try to use Windows as little as possible; I'm continually reminded of the
airplane analogy that went around the net a while ago; Windows is like an
airliner that looks great, takes off without any problems, everybody is nice
and happy, and then explodes in mid-air without any warning.
I run applications in OS/2 "DOS Box" Windows because it does run reliably
and on the chance that something does run amok, I can shut it down or I get
Yosemite Sam yelling "No, No, No, you're doing it all wrong". The errant
application can be restarted and the problem found. My ideal setup for
developing code is, One window with the source editor, one window with the
compiler/simulator, one window for MPSTART for programming the part. Each
application is a DOS only application and I'm comfortable with it. I have
not yet tried Windows '95 because I know I will have problems with
installing it on my PC at home.
I also like having control over my own tools. For this reason I use a
programmable editor which I've set up with my favourite defaults for PIC
Coding and I've ended up writing my own PIC Compiler and Simulator. The
compilers I've tried don't really have the features I'm looking for (mostly
Local/Automatic Variable and 16 Bit support). Over the past year, a lot of
my application development (ie Frosty and the I/R Receivers) have really
involved debugging the Compiler, but now I have something that produces code
almost as efficient as what I could do in assembler, but my I feel my
knowledge of the PIC instruction set is at a very advanced level.
I apologize if anybody who has put a compiler out on the Net for free feels
slighted (which is a lot more than I'm willing to do at this time). That
was not my intent. What I would like to see is ANSI-C or MicroSoft-C source
that, like Prezemek, I can build off of and fix and improve upon.
I also don't want to slight the Microchip tools, I feel their assembler
clearly is the best one out there (making it free makes it even better). I
wrote my own simulator primarily because the Stimulus File only worked in
terms of Instruction Counts (I use the same format with "STEP" or "TIME"
Inputs), the whole program cannot be seen at one time, and the MPSIM.INI
file really has to be created for each program (altho I ended up having my
compiler creating one).
>Return-Path: <.....owner-piclistKILLspam.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
>Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 09:47:43 -0500
>Reply-To: pic microcontroller discussion list <EraseMEPICLISTspam_OUTTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
>Sender: pic microcontroller discussion list <PICLISTspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
>From: James Widman <@spam@jwidmanKILLspamCLAM.MI.NMFS.GOV>
>Subject: Re: Development platforms
>X-To: KILLspamPICLISTKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU
>To: Multiple recipients of list PICLIST <RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
>X-UIDL: a666053b76c6619378c841791f77264a
>
>> The tide has turned... do it for windows &/or macs. Everybody I know
>> uses the existing dos tools in dos compatibility windows; I have my
>> editor set up for a bunch of compilers & assemblers including the PIC
>> stuff, so that I can go from the editor to the assembler to the debugger
>> to the programmer without leaving any of them; I run my logic analyzer
>> in another dos window & I can switch amongst them while they're all hot.
>> Anyone can do this with existing tools almost for free, so redesigning
>> any of this capability is a losing proposition.
>
>my $0.02
>
>Please make sure they will also work under OS/2.
>
>Thanks
>
>Jim Widman
>
>spamBeGonejwidmanspamBeGoneclam.mi.nmfs.gov
>
>
Myke
"We're Starfleet officers, weird is part of the job."
Sean Winans wrote:
>
> I've got two copies of this from you, hope this helps ;)
> Isn't there a config setting with listserv that you can use to copy self?
> Yeah, that does help. What I'm getting is my replies returned from thelist
server as not posted due to duplication. I see lots of duplicates
in the list from time to time, but I thought that was a server problem.
I'm going to post this just once, see if I get the 'can't do - duplicate
posting' message, & then if Sean would email me with a verification, we
might have something pinned down.
I tried set piclist ack norepro to get acknowledgement of my postings,
but I obviously don't understand the command set, 'cause it didn't work.
Oh, well. Another day, another blue and yellow green electric dollar...
> O.K., I sent this once & it never made it. I'll try one more time.
> This has been happening regularly; none of the last bunch of replies
> I've made have made it to the list. If anyone has some comment, I'd
> appreciate it.
Tom:
I assume that "it never made it" means that you got a message back
from the list-server saying that your message was being returned
unprocessed because it was a duplicate of a message already posted.
Is that correct?
If so, it's safe to assume that your message DID get posted; the
message from the listserver can be ignored.
The listserver doesn't normally send copies of your own messages to
you, nor does it send you an acknowledgement when your messages are
posted. To change this behavior, send a message with the following
text in the body to RemoveMElistservTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu:
> I am in the early stages of writing some development tools for the
> PIC, and would like to know if there is any prefered development
> platform.
>
> I have the resources to go either for straight DOS, or for Windows.
> and the amount of work is about the same either way.
>
> Ivan Hofsajer <RemoveMEPICLISTspam_OUTKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote:
>
> > I am in the early stages of writing some development tools for the
> > PIC, and would like to know if there is any prefered development
> > platform.
> >
> > I have the resources to go either for straight DOS, or for Windows.
> > and the amount of work is about the same either way.
>
> Ivan:
>
> No question... Write for Windows.
That's true given the question. Windows has the largest user base and
a better toolset. However it'll shut out quite a few people like myself.
Actually I'd personally prefer DOS tools because then I can run them under the
Linux DOS emulator which doesn't yet support Windows applications stably yet.
The answer I'd like to see is:
Write for Windows and release the source code so that others can port it to
their personal platform. Encapsulate the UI independant code and the UI
dependant code into separate modules so that a new UI can be easily
inserted. Let others help spread the development of your tools be writing
the new interfaces you don't have time to do. Make data files platform
independant (ASCII perferably) and make the formats of the files well known
and well documented. Give the code whatever copyright you feel comfortable
with (GNU, BSD, free for non-commercial-use, No changeds without submitting
them back to you, whatever) so that the source can be distributed and
others can contribute to it's development.
That way those of us that are Windows deficient (DOS, Mac, Linux, Amiga, etc)
can get involved.
> RemoveMEbyronTakeThisOuTspamCC.GATECH.EDU wrote:
> > Ivan Hofsajer wrote:
> > ....
> > No question... Write for Windows.
>
> That's true given the question. Windows has the largest user base and
> a better toolset. However it'll shut out quite a few people like myself.
> Actually I'd personally prefer DOS tools because then I can run them under the
> Linux DOS emulator which doesn't yet support Windows applications stably yet.
>
> The answer I'd like to see is:
>
> Write for Windows and release the source code so that others can port it to
> their personal platform. Encapsulate the UI independant code and the UI
> dependant code into separate modules so that a new UI can be easily
> inserted. Let others help spread the development of your tools be writing
> the new interfaces you don't have time to do. Make data files platform
> independant (ASCII perferably) and make the formats of the files well known
> and well documented. Give the code whatever copyright you feel comfortable
> with (GNU, BSD, free for non-commercial-use, No changeds without submitting
> them back to you, whatever) so that the source can be distributed and
> others can contribute to it's development.
>
> That way those of us that are Windows deficient (DOS, Mac, Linux, Amiga, etc)
> can get involved.
>
> Just a thought,
>
> BAJ
>
I support that.
MfG., Hans
------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Kraus eMail: EraseMEkrausspamspamBeGonesiemens.co.at
Siemens AG Oesterreich PSE KB41 phone: ++43/1/1707-47217
Gudrunstrasse 11, A-1100 Wien fax: ++43/1/1707-56399
------------------------------------------------------------
>For what its worth, I would really like to see more Mac based tools.
>
>
>Thanks
>
>John Miskimins
So would I. But when I asked about this at the seminar, the presenter said
they have no plans to offer a Mac-based version of any of the development
tools. When I protested, he asked "How many here would use the Mac tools if
they were available?" Two of us, out of the fifty or so attendees raised
our hands. He thus considered Microchip's position to be validated.
I would be satisfied if they would just fix the communications link between
the programmer and the PC. At least on my version of the development
system, the software runs fine on my PowerPC Mac under SoftWindows, but
since they have chosen to use a non-standard protocol for communicating
with the programmer board, it's useless for actually programming parts.
.....................Reg Neale.....................
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J. O'Rourke
In message <RemoveME31620e3c1bf5003KILLspammhub1.tc.umn.edu> pic microcontroller discussion
list writes:
> For what its worth, I would really like to see more Mac based tools.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> John Miskimins
> Write for Windows and release the source code so that
> others can port it to their personal platform. Encapsulate the UI
> independant code and the UI dependant code into separate modules so
> that a new UI can be easily inserted. Let others help spread the
> development of your tools be writing the new interfaces you don't
> have time to do. Make data files platform independant (ASCII
> perferably) and make the formats of the files well known and well
> documented. Give the code whatever copyright you feel comfortable
> with (GNU, BSD, free for non-commercial-use, No changeds without
> submitting them back to you, whatever) so that the source can be
> distributed and others can contribute to it's development.
> So would I. But when I asked about this at the seminar, the presenter said
> they have no plans to offer a Mac-based version of any of the development
> tools. When I protested, he asked "How many here would use the Mac tools if
> they were available?" Two of us, out of the fifty or so attendees raised
> our hands. He thus considered Microchip's position to be validated.
> I would be satisfied if they would just fix the communications link between
> the programmer and the PC. At least on my version of the development
> system, the software runs fine on my PowerPC Mac under SoftWindows, but
> since they have chosen to use a non-standard protocol for communicating
> with the programmer board, it's useless for actually programming parts.
>
> .....................Reg Neale.....................
> "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J. O'Rourke
I have also tried the softwindow route and simply gave up and used a PC. Don't
know if you subscibe or not but the last issue of MacUser (came a few days ago)
had an interesting article on the new Macs. Seems they will come complete with
a
parallel port, accept PC style keyboards, etc, etc. Apple claims it will
release
this fall along with other manufacturers. Maybe there is some sort of light at
the
end of the tunnel.
>
> I have also tried the softwindow route and simply gave up and used a PC.
Don't
> know if you subscibe or not but the last issue of MacUser (came a few days
ago)
> had an interesting article on the new Macs. Seems they will come complete
with
> a
> parallel port, accept PC style keyboards, etc, etc. Apple claims it will
> release
> this fall along with other manufacturers. Maybe there is some sort of light
at
> the
> end of the tunnel.
>
> John Miskimins
>
Yeah, that's what I did too. Bought an old XT for $75 with monitor.
It was perfectly adequate for the previous version of the development
system. The current version requires a newer version of DOS, so I have
to use a machine at work instead. The XT with its 5.25 floppy only and
10MB hard drive won't hack it anymore.
My understanding is that its not the difference between MAC and PC
per se that's the problem, it's that Microchip chose to use a
non-standard serial protocol, which nevertheless seems to work OK on
most PCs but not on MACs.
Thanks for the tip.
lancaster.ac.uk
