[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [avr-gcc-list] AVR Studio 4.19 does not work with AVR Toolchain 3.4.

From: David Brown
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] AVR Studio 4.19 does not work with AVR Toolchain 3.4.0 (informative)
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 20:48:53 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20111108 Fedora/3.1.16-1.fc14 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.16

On 09/08/12 18:32, Weddington, Eric wrote:

-----Original Message----- From:
[mailto:avr- address@hidden
On Behalf Of David Brown Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 8:06 AM
To: address@hidden Cc: avr-gcc-list Subject: Re:
[avr-gcc-list] AVR Studio 4.19 does not work with AVR Toolchain
3.4.0 (informative)

For what it's worth, I too dislike the newer AVR Studio - partly
because I do most of my development work with Linux, and partly
because even on Windows it is a bloated mess.  I can't figure out
why they decided to use MS VS as a base - the industry has
practically standardised on Eclipse, and the single biggest request
from users for AVR Studio 5 was that it be cross-platform.  But I
guess Atmel had their reasons, and they are certainly good at
making the compiler toolchain easily available from Linux, so I
don't want to complain /too/ much.



There's a difference between complaining, and providing honest
feedback. I don't think that you are complaining.

I'm complaining, honestly!

Yes, you are of course right - without feedback from users, it would be hard for vendors to know what they are doing right or wrong. And I do mean my comments as constructive criticism. I have also sent at least some of these points to Atmel from their support web sites, though I didn't get particularly positive feedback (more in the line of a polite "we hear what you are saying..." rather than "yes, you're right, we'll change everything!").

To be fair, however, I haven't tried the latest Windows versions of the command-line tools (since 3.2.x) or AVR Studio 6 - for all I know, the installers could have been changed to allow easy parallel installations of different versions (just like the old WinAVR installation program did). Part of this is that my only remaining Windows machine has XP service pack 2, and AVR Studio 5+ requires XP service pack 3. So I have to do my installations in a virtual machine, and since my workhorse computers are all Linux.

Saying that the "single biggest request from users for AVR Studio 5
was that it be cross-platform" doesn't necessarily make it so. Yes,
there's a lot of anecdotal evidence. But this is why a survey is
absolutely necessary, to actually get the numbers to back up that

Again, to be fair here, my claim that cross-platform support was the biggest request for AVR Studio 5 is based on hearsay, from someone else who was disappointed that AS5 was based on MSVS instead of Eclipse. My understanding is that Atmel did take a rough survey of feature requests on AVRFreaks while AS5 was being planned, and certainly cross-platform support was high on the list. Part of the problem is perhaps the disappointment of frustrated expectations - after all, AVR32 Studio was Eclipse based and was cross-platform, and all the hints about the future AS5 were that it /would/ be cross-platform.

Some comments on the matter (found with the help of omniscient google) :


I do understand that there could be many reasons why Atmel picked MSVS rather than Eclipse - it is unlikely that they did so just to annoy users. It could have been as simple as having staff that understood Windows programming or C#, but few that were competent at Java. But perhaps many of the other bits and pieces in AS (other than the editor, project manager, and debugger - all of which come as standard in Eclipse) would have been hard to develop for Eclipse.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]