Why doesn't Parallax addopt one ide, so new user designed software would just b

Capt. Quirk

There are so many separate languages and tools available for the Propeller, Javelin, Sx, and BS2. Why can't there be one·IDE that you can pick the chip you are using, and the IDE would pop-up the custom menus for that project.·An IDE that would allow plug-ins to be easily created. And that·could work on a PC, Mac, & Lunix.
·
Use the OBEX to hold plug-ins to·enhance a Parallax users experience, for the hobbyist or professional. It's nice that they all utilities are put into "Stickies", but·why should someone search the forums for·solutions like these.·
·
Is it possible for Parallax to trade·product with a group of dedicated & capable users to get something like this off the ground? Maybe it could be completed to coincide with the Prop2 release? or sooner.



Post Edited (Capt. Quirk) : 11/9/2009 11:08:27 PM GMT

sylvie369

Capt. Quirk said...
And that·could work on a PC, Mac, & Lunix.

"Lunix"?

Is that a term for people who actually like Windows?

SRLM

It is probably because Parallax needs a new IDE so frequently it is just easier to make a new one custom to each chip.

BradC

Capt. Quirk said...
An IDE that would allow plug-ins to be easily created. And that could work on a PC, Mac, & Lunix.

I think you underestimate the effort required to do that particular task.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.

Javalin

but its a good idea, though. I see ImageCraft are planning one. The Propeller editor is probably the nicest and most modern to base it on.

James

Capt. Quirk

Why can't they use a mature·open-source IDE,·with prebuilt templates or wizards to create the plug-in’s.·Nearly all software supporting Parallax products have already been released as a free downloads. There has also been·specialized software offer for sale. I've often wondered how these·developers made a return on their development costs, unless it was covered up front by parallax. Often, it seems·vendors have full-time jobs, and development·of software occurs on a part-time basis. And in the mean time life gets in the way, and projects are·delayed.·
·
Rather than anticipating need or a niche market to serve the community, let the community steer development, as·needs arise, a plug-in·will be created. Much like what has already occurred. Kinda like the "Invisible Hand", except it·in this case·roles may be reversed.·On the other hand, vendors and individuals·could also build plug-in's to sell. The IDE's wizards would·reduce some of the·labor required, and possibly make it easier to·earn a return on their investment.

If it·worked out that·creating plug-in's is·profitable, it may create a cottage industry, and the role of the invisible hand would return to normal.

waltc

Nothing is stopping folks from say adopting Java based Eclipse as a IDE, but IMO something like that is overkill for a microcontroller like the Prop and besides I don't see anyone here clamoring for a monsterously complex IDE with a learning curve.

Besides Parallax would probably have to hire a full time Java guru to maintain their version of the Eclipse IDE and that isn't cheap.

Franklin

I would rather Parallax stay with what they do best and let someone else build the "all-in-one" does everything IDE to prove to the world what a great programmer they are. It could be done but why bother?

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
- Stephen

Leon

Eclipse is gaining in popularity. I've never liked it much, although I am getting used to it as XMOS provides it for software development with their chips. There are command line interfaces to their tools which some people prefer. My favourite IDE is CrossStudio which Rowley Associates provides with their CrossWorks tools. I don't like the Propeller Tool IDE very much, it doesn't feel like a professional piece of software.

Leon

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM

Post Edited (Leon) : 11/15/2009 6:31:29 PM GMT