| ??? 01/17/11 18:31 Modified: 01/17/11 18:35 Read: times |
#180652 - I considered developer effort Responding to: ???'s previous message |
But then I realized how much time is invested in obtaining the knowledge to use the RTOS properly. Anyone can purchase a really nice software package, but time needs to be invested to learn that specific software package. Once one is done learning that package, they're locked into using only that package otherwise the learning process begins again. What I would really like to see for the 8051/2 is a UML editor that allows customization of an RTOS specifically for the interrupts of the 8051/2 in combination with a code generator that can be compiled with known C compilers. I thought about investing my own time in creating such a beast, but then I realized how much time would be invested in developing such a software package. However, if there was such a package, developing time would almost vanish and debugging would almost vanish. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| it just struck me, is this why RTOS 'need' is so prevalent? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Two Camps Here | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Best Practice | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| a similar discussion... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I have always maintained the belief... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| "non-arbitrary" ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| "Real" Processing exposed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Too Specific | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| sweeping generalisation | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RTOS are very useful | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I think this got away ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Blocking/nonblocking I/O | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not The only reason | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I considered developer effort | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| code generator | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Another neat feature | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| there is such an attachment ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Lots of tools available | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| not really | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Lots of C tools | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| widespread | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Missed the point! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Ecosystem | 01/01/70 00:00 |