RE: [avr-gcc-list] Next version of winavr!!!

[Dave Hansen]

From: "Brian Cuthie" <address@hidden>
[...]
> Makefiles are fine.

So what's the problem?

> Tools evolve. You should too.

Make has come a long way since I first started using it...

> I've been doing embedded work since the days when the 8080 was a modern
> day processor.

Gosh, you must be old.  ;-)  We had the 8085 when I started, though we only 
had PLM/80 and assembler (MDS80 running ISIS -- coming from the @ED line 
editor on Univac EXEC-8, I thought CREDIT was heaven).  Another group at the 
company I was working for was working with this spiffy new chip from Intel.  
Harder to get hold of than hen's teeth, but it was really small, fast, and 
capable.  Called the 8051.

> I welcome any good IDE that makes my life easier.

I could say that "good IDE" is an oxymoron, but that'd be too harsh.   IME, 
most IDEs make it easy to do simple things.  They're especially useful to 
get example code up and running quickly.  But they fall apart when stretched 
a little.  I find them (for the most part) unsuitable for a production 
environment.  Furthermore, everyone's IDE is different from everyone else's. 
 If you have several tool sets from several vendors targeting several 
micros, you have to master each of them.

In any case, I'm not objecting to the development of an IDE for avr-gcc, or 
its includsion in WinAVR.  I'm objecting to (what I saw as) the assertion 
that the sample makefile was too complex, and should be removed in favor of 
a simpler one.  Eric has since responded that we're talking about different 
things, so I'm satisfied.

Regards,
  -=Dave

_________________________________________________________________
Get MSN 8 and enjoy automatic e-mail virus protection.   
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus