Re: [avr-gcc-list] AVR Studio 4.19 does not work with AVR Toolchain 3.4.0 (informative)

[David Brown]

On 09/08/12 18:32, Weddington, Eric wrote:
> > -----Original Message----- From:
> > address@hidden
> > [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.
> >
> > mvh.,
> >
> > David
>
> 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
> statement.

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) :

<http://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/arduino-woe%27s/120/>
<http://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/atmel%27s-avr-studio-5-x/15/>
<http://www.avrfreaks.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=printview&t=103949&start=180>


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.

mvh.,

David