I totally understand that this is a very unscientific survey, but I hope that it can provide some guidance in how we should prioritize things.
Hi Dave,
I think every bit of input helps here - thanks for doing this.
However, I think we do have to accept that we forum members are all Propeller "enthusiasts", and that even though many of us also have a professional persona, the results will still be slightly skewed in favor of our own interests. For example, if we get enthusiastic about chips like the Propeller, there's a fair chance that we also prefer to work in companies who are themselves a little outside the mainstream.
I wonder if Parallax is doing any research on potential professional users who don't currently have an interest in the Propeller? After all, those are the ones they really have to attract!
However, I think we do have to accept that we forum members are all Propeller "enthusiasts", and that even though many of us also have a professional persona, the results will still be slightly skewed in favor of our own interests. For example, if we get enthusiastic about chips like the Propeller, there's a fair chance that we also prefer to work in companies who are themselves a little outside the mainstream.
I wonder if Parallax is doing any research on potential professional users who don't currently have an interest in the Propeller? After all, those are the ones they really have to attract!
Ross, the irony in your statement is that the Propeller 2 is being designed with input from these same "enthusiasts", which basically means that the upcoming hardware is already biased towards the needs & desires of "this" audience, as opposed to "that" audience.
I tried to capture the needs of the hobbyist and the corporate users in the survey. That's why I had the two categories. My own answers were quite different between the two categories. Even though I don't use debuggers, I gave this a high score in the professional category because I know my co-workers do require them. I work in an Engineering department with about a dozen design engineers. We use TI video processors and ARM devices in our products. I applied the same requirements we have for these devices to the Prop 2.
Kevin Wood:
Ross, the irony in your statement is that the Propeller 2 is being designed with input from these same "enthusiasts", which basically means that the upcoming hardware is already biased towards the needs & desires of "this" audience, as opposed to "that" audience.
The additional irony is that this forum was setup for the customers (potential) of Parallax Semiconductor i.e. professional developers.
RossH:
For example, if we get enthusiastic about chips like the Propeller, there's a fair chance that we also prefer to work in companies who are themselves a little outside the mainstream.
I thought the whole idea of Parallax Semiconductor was to get into the mainstream.
Anyway after browsing the 20+ pages of this thread I can honestly say that as a member of "that audience" what I have read here is polarizing my opinion about using the version II device in a direction that is not what Parallax desires.
Also due to the lack of C tools all the other information in form of app notes etc is still pushing Spin, whilst for a certain audience that is ok however it is not mainstream i.e. "that audience".
Edit:
Phil Pilgrim:
We can all hope so, can't we?
I thought I was on the Parallax Semiconductor forum, hmmm maybe not.
Anyway after browsing the 20+ pages of this thread I can honestly say that as a member of "that audience" what I have read here is polarizing my opinion about using the version II device in a direction that is not what Parallax desires.
I think it might be a good idea to move this thread to the Propeller Chip forum and possibly lock it. Two new threads could be created one for Prop II Spin Tools and one for Prop II C Tools, the purpose for that is to allow focus on each tool and hopefully reduce Spin Vs. C arguments.
Anyway this is not a Spin Vs. C argument it is about commercial developers who may want to use the Prop 2 and who want C tools to do it.
I would have thought that having a separate forum (not connected to the parallax forums) dedicated to the new Parallax Semiconductor website a wise move.
Just a thought:)
Forum: Parallax Semiconductor
Forum for commercial product developers who use Propeller chips. This forum is monitored by Parallax Semiconductor FAEs
Anyway this is not a Spin Vs. C argument it is about commercial developers who may want to use the Prop 2 and who want C tools to do it.
I would have thought that having a separate forum dedicated to the new Parallax Semiconductor website a wise move.
Just a thought:)
I agree WRT the new forum, just wonder if it is the best place for this thread given the direction it has taken. It is seems to be one of those "if you like sausage, you don't want to see how it's made" things.
As I understand need for tools for as You cal it "professional developers".
I think looking only from that side on Propeller -- Are NOT Parallax agenda -- Mostly only some people around Parallax that will control that in that direction.
And If Parallax listen only to that people -- That will be not good for entire Propeller II development.
Sapieha
As I understand need for tools for as You cal it "professional developers".
I think looking only from that side on Propeller -- Are NOT Parallax agenda -- Mostly only some people around Parallax that will control that in that direction.
And If Parallax listen only to that people -- That will be not good for entire Propeller II development.
Interesting, If that is true then one would have to wonder why Parallax Semiconductor was setup in the first place.
Note to the FAEs who are monitoring here: Fandom is not doing you any favors.
Parallax Semiconductor is interested in assembling a small team of developers familiar with the GCC compiler suite and perhaps the Eclipse plug-in. The objective is create an open-source cross-platform compatible compiler suite for Propeller 2 (code name) supporting Spin, C/C++ and possibly other languages. A GUI such as Eclipse would be customized to make use of the GCC optimizer.
...
We aren't aiming for a committee-based approach with a strange outcome, but one that empowers developers to work together with some pretty clear roles and complimentary functions.
...
This effort does not eliminate an expansion of our current Windows Propeller Tool to support Propeller 2. We will need these tools to program the Propeller before any GCC efforts are completed. Some customers may not be interested in a GCC set of tools.
You are welcome to use this thread to comment or share ideas.
...which basically means that the upcoming hardware is already biased towards the needs & desires of "this" audience, as opposed to "that" audience.
If I were to take that statement seriously (which I didn't -- obviously from my response above), I would have to accept the implication that we are not professional developers, as opposed to "that" audience. It seems that somehow a preference for Spin and a disdain for C and debuggers casts a programmer as less than "professional", which I have taken issue with, in one form or another, from the beginning of this thread. Batang stated that this is not about Spin vs. C; but I fear it's become that, if only by implication.
I can only hope that the dev tool chain we're talking about here is meant to be inclusive, not exclusive to a single "class" of developer.
Phil, I think the reality is that there are fewer professional programmers that use Spin than C. There are probably only a few hundred people that can program in Spin, and probably less than a hundred that actually make products based on Spin. I don't know how many C/C++ programmers there are, but I would guess there are over 10,000 programmers that use C code in their products.
With that being said, Spin is a very important part of the Prop. Ken's initial post indicated that he wants Spin to be part of the "GCC/Eclipse" developement. He also said that Parallax would expand the current Prop tool to support the Prop 2.
It seems that somehow a preference for Spin and a disdain for C and debuggers casts a programmer as less than "professional"
I maintain that there are two major classes of customer under consideration here. I often refer to those two classes as "professional" and "hobbyist".
These are overloaded terms but there is no implication in my mind that one is superior to the other. Just different and with different needs.
The "professional" is the one with the experience, knows his programming, probably been around a few different embedded processors has no problems picking up what ever IDE and language is required. May well have a formal education or training and is probably developing full time.
The "hobbyist" is the new comer. May never have seen an MCU before. May never have programmed anything before. May well not have much time to devote to this activity. Is not familiar with common comp. sci. jargon.
The "professional" wants C. Or perhaps his boss tells him he wants C:) He's comfortable and productive with it. He can easily reuse his existing code. He can easily be replaced by another C programmer if need be. In this world the Propeller needs GCC or similar and perhaps Eclipse or similar.
The "hobbyist" needs all the hand holding he can get. He learning everything from scratch. He needs simple. He needs "write code, hit F11, and it runs". He needs that drop dead simplicity offered by the Prop Tool.
Again I'm not sure why Spin is under discussion in this GCC/Eclipse thread that is obviously targeting the "professional".
With all due respect, your characterization of Spin users is downright patronizing, and even more polarizing than that which I was commenting about. It doesn't even deserve the attention a rebuttal would give it.
Hobbyist: Does not need anything special or specific. He will figure out a path that works for him using whatever is available. Will often happily work with new and different paths to his solution. Rarely cares about standards as long as results can be achieved. Hobby is about passion and fun, and often will go the extra mile to achieve it.
Professional: Needs all the special attention and care. Has requirements (often out of his control) that demand specific paths to his solution. Cares a lot about standards, often they are part of his requirements (that he has little control over). The professional project is often encumbered with requirements, time limits, bosses needling, less latitude to try new and different things.
These are the black and white... the reality is a sea of grey.
I need add:
Professionals: In many cases will DON't learn new technology - NEVER chane for them anything. And in many cases have Bosses that don't understand technology them produce - NOT mention NEW technology.
Hobbyist: Does not need anything special or specific. He will figure out a path that works for him using whatever is available. Will often happily work with new and different paths to his solution. Rarely cares about standards as long as results can be achieved. Hobby is about passion and fun, and often will go the extra mile to achieve it.
Professional: Needs all the special attention and care. Has requirements (often out of his control) that demand specific paths to his solution. Cares a lot about standards, often they are part of his requirements (that he has little control over). The professional project is often encumbered with requirements, time limits, bosses needling, less latitude to try new and different things.
These are the black and white... the reality is a sea of grey.
If I were to take that statement seriously (which I didn't -- obviously from my response above), I would have to accept the implication that we are not professional developers, as opposed to "that" audience. It seems that somehow a preference for Spin and a disdain for C and debuggers casts a programmer as less than "professional", which I have taken issue with, in one form or another, from the beginning of this thread. Batang stated that this is not about Spin vs. C; but I fear it's become that, if only by implication.
Knowing some of the work that you've done for Parallax, I personally consider you a "professional" developer. You just happen to prefer to use Spin, which I'm sure is because it generally resembles obfuscated Perl.
It's okay for somebody to prefer Spin & disdain C & debuggers, because each to their own, right? Which also means it's okay to prefer C & debuggers and disdain Spin.
My take on Batang's statements is that Parallax is trying to move in a certain direction, but you still have a number of people here trying to talk them out of it, whether directly or indirectly. But as for his App Note statement, well, they gotta start somewhere.
Ouch! Sorry all. My post was for sure not meant to be patronizing or a put down towards either of my apparently fictitious categories. in fact I said "there is no implication in my mind that one is superior to the other."
As you know I don't have a downer on Spin or Spin programmers. In fact, at least for the Prop I, I still think the combination of Spin and PASM is the best way to program the thing. Professional or otherwise. The C solutions we have now are too big, Catalina, or too big and slower Zog. I'm not really much into BASIC and Forth so Spin it is. Especially since the Prop Tool or BST makes it so easy. We will see how that changes with Prop II.
I think where you all disagree is with my idea of "hobbyist". I'm thinking of that 11 year old kid who typed
10 PRINT "Hello"
20 GOTO 10
RUN
into the first C64 he touched and it did something. Bingo, he's hooked. If he had to use C to do that he may well have never bothered and gone back to playing football.
Wow! You stay away from a thread for just a couple of hours ... !
In response to ctwardell's suggestion, I don't think Parallax should lock this thread - but given the direction it has now taken, I agree they should consider moving it from the Parallax Semiconductor forum back to the Propeller forum - or perhaps even to the General Discussion forum.
I know their time is limited, but some occasional input from Parallax might be very helpful in keeping discussions like this a bit more focussed in future.
To get this thread back on track, perhaps Ken (since he initiated it) could give us a quick update on Parallax's current thinking or on any decisions that have been made?
Thirded. Some direction would be nice at this stage. Otherwise, we're just a dozen or so people crammed into a small room, batting the Happy Fun Ball around -- with predictable consequences.
At least we have the Happy Fun Ball! That is the best animated GIF I have ever seen, even counting the one with the guy beating his head on the keyboard.
Seriously! I love little, goofy animations. The person who authored that one has real talent. Look at some of the higher motion frames sometime. The visual cues are perfectly done, conveying a lot more motion than there actually is in the GIF.
Comments
Hi Dave,
I think every bit of input helps here - thanks for doing this.
However, I think we do have to accept that we forum members are all Propeller "enthusiasts", and that even though many of us also have a professional persona, the results will still be slightly skewed in favor of our own interests. For example, if we get enthusiastic about chips like the Propeller, there's a fair chance that we also prefer to work in companies who are themselves a little outside the mainstream.
I wonder if Parallax is doing any research on potential professional users who don't currently have an interest in the Propeller? After all, those are the ones they really have to attract!
Ross.
Ross, the irony in your statement is that the Propeller 2 is being designed with input from these same "enthusiasts", which basically means that the upcoming hardware is already biased towards the needs & desires of "this" audience, as opposed to "that" audience.
-Phil
The additional irony is that this forum was setup for the customers (potential) of Parallax Semiconductor i.e. professional developers.
I thought the whole idea of Parallax Semiconductor was to get into the mainstream.
Anyway after browsing the 20+ pages of this thread I can honestly say that as a member of "that audience" what I have read here is polarizing my opinion about using the version II device in a direction that is not what Parallax desires.
Also due to the lack of C tools all the other information in form of app notes etc is still pushing Spin, whilst for a certain audience that is ok however it is not mainstream i.e. "that audience".
Edit:
I thought I was on the Parallax Semiconductor forum, hmmm maybe not.
Just some random thoughts.
I think it might be a good idea to move this thread to the Propeller Chip forum and possibly lock it. Two new threads could be created one for Prop II Spin Tools and one for Prop II C Tools, the purpose for that is to allow focus on each tool and hopefully reduce Spin Vs. C arguments.
C.W.
Did you read the title of this thread.
Anyway this is not a Spin Vs. C argument it is about commercial developers who may want to use the Prop 2 and who want C tools to do it.
I would have thought that having a separate forum (not connected to the parallax forums) dedicated to the new Parallax Semiconductor website a wise move.
Just a thought:)
I agree WRT the new forum, just wonder if it is the best place for this thread given the direction it has taken. It is seems to be one of those "if you like sausage, you don't want to see how it's made" things.
C.W.
As I understand need for tools for as You cal it "professional developers".
I think looking only from that side on Propeller -- Are NOT Parallax agenda -- Mostly only some people around Parallax that will control that in that direction.
And If Parallax listen only to that people -- That will be not good for entire Propeller II development.
Interesting, If that is true then one would have to wonder why Parallax Semiconductor was setup in the first place.
Note to the FAEs who are monitoring here: Fandom is not doing you any favors.
I can only hope that the dev tool chain we're talking about here is meant to be inclusive, not exclusive to a single "class" of developer.
-Phil
With that being said, Spin is a very important part of the Prop. Ken's initial post indicated that he wants Spin to be part of the "GCC/Eclipse" developement. He also said that Parallax would expand the current Prop tool to support the Prop 2.
I maintain that there are two major classes of customer under consideration here. I often refer to those two classes as "professional" and "hobbyist".
These are overloaded terms but there is no implication in my mind that one is superior to the other. Just different and with different needs.
The "professional" is the one with the experience, knows his programming, probably been around a few different embedded processors has no problems picking up what ever IDE and language is required. May well have a formal education or training and is probably developing full time.
The "hobbyist" is the new comer. May never have seen an MCU before. May never have programmed anything before. May well not have much time to devote to this activity. Is not familiar with common comp. sci. jargon.
The "professional" wants C. Or perhaps his boss tells him he wants C:) He's comfortable and productive with it. He can easily reuse his existing code. He can easily be replaced by another C programmer if need be. In this world the Propeller needs GCC or similar and perhaps Eclipse or similar.
The "hobbyist" needs all the hand holding he can get. He learning everything from scratch. He needs simple. He needs "write code, hit F11, and it runs". He needs that drop dead simplicity offered by the Prop Tool.
Again I'm not sure why Spin is under discussion in this GCC/Eclipse thread that is obviously targeting the "professional".
With all due respect, your characterization of Spin users is downright patronizing, and even more polarizing than that which I was commenting about. It doesn't even deserve the attention a rebuttal would give it.
-Phil
I have to agree with Phil. I think your two classes are pretty far off the mark.
Professional: Needs all the special attention and care. Has requirements (often out of his control) that demand specific paths to his solution. Cares a lot about standards, often they are part of his requirements (that he has little control over). The professional project is often encumbered with requirements, time limits, bosses needling, less latitude to try new and different things.
These are the black and white... the reality is a sea of grey.
I need add:
Professionals: In many cases will DON't learn new technology - NEVER chane for them anything. And in many cases have Bosses that don't understand technology them produce - NOT mention NEW technology.
Knowing some of the work that you've done for Parallax, I personally consider you a "professional" developer. You just happen to prefer to use Spin, which I'm sure is because it generally resembles obfuscated Perl.
It's okay for somebody to prefer Spin & disdain C & debuggers, because each to their own, right? Which also means it's okay to prefer C & debuggers and disdain Spin.
My take on Batang's statements is that Parallax is trying to move in a certain direction, but you still have a number of people here trying to talk them out of it, whether directly or indirectly. But as for his App Note statement, well, they gotta start somewhere.
As you know I don't have a downer on Spin or Spin programmers. In fact, at least for the Prop I, I still think the combination of Spin and PASM is the best way to program the thing. Professional or otherwise. The C solutions we have now are too big, Catalina, or too big and slower Zog. I'm not really much into BASIC and Forth so Spin it is. Especially since the Prop Tool or BST makes it so easy. We will see how that changes with Prop II.
I think where you all disagree is with my idea of "hobbyist". I'm thinking of that 11 year old kid who typed into the first C64 he touched and it did something. Bingo, he's hooked. If he had to use C to do that he may well have never bothered and gone back to playing football.
In response to ctwardell's suggestion, I don't think Parallax should lock this thread - but given the direction it has now taken, I agree they should consider moving it from the Parallax Semiconductor forum back to the Propeller forum - or perhaps even to the General Discussion forum.
I know their time is limited, but some occasional input from Parallax might be very helpful in keeping discussions like this a bit more focussed in future.
To get this thread back on track, perhaps Ken (since he initiated it) could give us a quick update on Parallax's current thinking or on any decisions that have been made?
Ross.
-Phil
C.W.
Hmmm - kinda spooky in here! I wonder where everybody went?
-Phil
I got told off, went home sulking:)
I think Phil was right : "Some direction would be nice at this stage."
Unless some new statements come out of Parallax I guess we have all said everything we have to say.