| ??? 08/09/09 17:57 Read: times |
#168279 - If only the pieces were separately available ... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik Malund said:
This, of course, says nothing about the simulator and other features of the compiler, depending on what features it purports to provide.
just a note: the simulator is not a feature of the compiler, it may be part of the toolset Well, if it's part of what they sell as a package, and isn't offered except as part of the package, then it's part of the decision. If they bundle one good piece of work with half a dozen bad ones, or half a dozen good ones with one bad one, and expect you to pay for the whole mess, then you have to judge the best as part of the worst, and not just the worst as part of the best. Then, of course, I'd have to examine the debugger and the simulator, if there is one.
this is where I think I'm the realist, I would not even consider the 'added parts' of the IDE. No compiler maker has a good editor, No compiler maker has a good simulator, No compiler maker has a good emulator, so I buy a good editor from an editor maker (CodeWright) an ICE from and ICE maker (various), use the debugger from the manufacturer for JTAG equipped chips (SiLabs). By the way, here is another example of my reason to have several apps open at the same time, which you argued as 'not necessary' in another post. If you're referring to my comment to Andy Peters, I said that it wasn't necessary to have all those applications open at the same time. I didn't say it wasn't necessary to have them. If they want me to pay for a simulator, then it has to simulate the parts I want to use. I'm certainly not going to pay for one I can't use or won't because of lack of device support.
The simulators included with the compiler toolsets are all (in my opinion) severely lacking, so were I to need one I would buy one from a simulator specialist. It is unfortunate that the IDEiots have forced so many companies to go outside their expertise to make their products saleable. After all, I believe that all these "RESET" problems are really power supply issues, among other things, hence, I can't get to the bottom of that if I completely ignore 805x. that statement has no place in this thread I mentioned it only to remind you that that's to only reason I'm fiddling with 805x at all. Erik
to avoid flack: An IDEiot is not someone that uses an IDE, if it works for you, go ahead. It is someone that is incapable of doing anything if it is not included in the IDE and refuses to go outside the IDE even if that will be better. While I agree, in essence, with your viewpoint on this particular matter, I challenge you to point to even one simulator that you'd consider. The only ones I've run across in my cursory sweep of what's "out there" have been part of an IDE, as you point out or (b) a compiler package, and that only because they claim to provide an IDE. My point, of course, is that there's really no simulator expert that's publishing MCU simulators for general sale. If there is, I'd be willing to take a close look. RE |
