4 ms·

Or we could just use an AVR or Cortex-M3 with already-open tools. The 1990s called; they want their crappy non-free embedded toolchain back.

by rphlx 15y ago

angusgr 15y ago
Totally. Although the M3 has its share of weird proprietary stuff aimed at the hobbyist, like the closed source "cloud" compiler platform mbed.
bradfa 15y ago
I'm not that familiar with the M3, but some of the PIC chips have much more expansive hardware interfaces and internals than comparable AVR parts. A lot of times, PIC chips are cheaper, too. Microchip can't develop the libraries internally due to contracts (it sounds like) so they're appealing to the community to bring them up to speed. They're offering compensation in the form of prizes. Why be negative on their attempt? They're trying to do the "right thing," granted, later than others, but still, it's a move in the direction the community wants them to go. Don't be negative about people trying to do the "right thing."
- pingswept 15y ago
  I think you're giving Microchip too much credit. They say that contractually they "can’t release [their] existing stacks", not that they can't port other open source stacks to their hardware, or develop their own from scratch. I agree with you that they're trying to do the right thing, more or less. (Speaking for myself, not the OP,) the reason for the negative reaction is that they're touting their kit as "open source" when it's not, after a long history of proprietary development. If they had lived up to their claims from the start, I think the reaction would have been entirely positive.
pingswept 15y ago
The contest is a strange idea, unless the prize is truly massive, or the hardware target outperformed the competition. Why would anyone want to help a hardware company make their software tools better? I even kind of like Microchip's processors, but I have no more interest in helping them compete in the hobbyist market than they do in washing my car. The Microchip guy asks: "Heck, who better to write these than the experts in the community…?" I'd suggest that a good candidate for someone better would be the people who designed the damn hardware. In the end, I'm glad to see companies moving toward open toolchains, but once we have a couple that work, the onus is on the companies to keep up with their competitors if they want to survive.

Or we could just use an AVR or Cortex-M3 with already-open tools. The 1990s called; they want their crappy non-free embedded toolchain back.

by rphlx 15y ago

Or we could just use an AVR or Cortex-M3 with already-open tools. The 1990s called; they want their crappy non-free embedded toolchain back.

angusgr 15y ago

Totally. Although the M3 has its share of weird proprietary stuff aimed at the hobbyist, like the closed source "cloud" compiler platform mbed.

bradfa 15y ago

I'm not that familiar with the M3, but some of the PIC chips have much more expansive hardware interfaces and internals than comparable AVR parts. A lot of times, PIC chips are cheaper, too. Microchip can't develop the libraries internally due to contracts (it sounds like) so they're appealing to the community to bring them up to speed. They're offering compensation in the form of prizes. Why be negative on their attempt? They're trying to do the "right thing," granted, later than others, but still, it's a move in the direction the community wants them to go. Don't be negative about people trying to do the "right thing."

pingswept 15y ago
I think you're giving Microchip too much credit. They say that contractually they "can’t release [their] existing stacks", not that they can't port other open source stacks to their hardware, or develop their own from scratch. I agree with you that they're trying to do the right thing, more or less. (Speaking for myself, not the OP,) the reason for the negative reaction is that they're touting their kit as "open source" when it's not, after a long history of proprietary development. If they had lived up to their claims from the start, I think the reaction would have been entirely positive.

pingswept 15y ago

The contest is a strange idea, unless the prize is truly massive, or the hardware target outperformed the competition. Why would anyone want to help a hardware company make their software tools better? I even kind of like Microchip's processors, but I have no more interest in helping them compete in the hobbyist market than they do in washing my car. The Microchip guy asks: "Heck, who better to write these than the experts in the community…?" I'd suggest that a good candidate for someone better would be the people who designed the damn hardware. In the end, I'm glad to see companies moving toward open toolchains, but once we have a couple that work, the onus is on the companies to keep up with their competitors if they want to survive.