I get the impression that the various fanboys who object to my presence on this forum don't have very much experience of other devices. I was working on mainframe computers in the early 1960s, and have been involved with microprocessors since about 1975, when they first became widely available at a reasonable price.
Hey Leon, I've spotted your cat all over the web. I like your posts and perspective because I find the different technologies intersting.
While the fanboys here are making a big show about "protecting" Parallax and sales of the Propeller, that's all it is - a show. If they truly cared about Parallax (IMO, they don't, it's just self-centered attention grabbing), they would stop their public display of foaming at the mouth.
The fact is, people coming from "other" systems need to make objective comparisons between the Propeller and those other systems. Coming here and not being able to rationally and objectively discuss these issues just pushes them away. This thread is a perfect example. Andre' asked a question, and the fanboys quickly overtook the discussion, turning it into, once again, a bash Leon fest.
IMO, this is as much Parallax's fault as not. First, there was a lot of "Propeller flag waving" when the chip was first released, which some have taken to an extreme. Secondly, Parallax has taken a very hands-off approach to moderating these forums. When people get out of line, they don't say anything. Thirdly, while Ken Gracey made an open request / rebuke towards Leon wrt the XMOS, he didn't do the same towards the fanboys, which I believe has only emboldened them to continue openly hostile posting towards other forum members.
These forums have become something that they weren't when I first joined. There is much less a sense of community than there was in the past, and ironically, it all seems to be centered around the Propeller chip. I guess if that's the way Parallax wants it, then that's what they'll get. But if it's not, I hope they'll make an effort to do something about it.
The Propeller is a powerful but quirky MCU that makes sense in many applications. I have used it in several designs, including one that is mil-spec & flight-qualified. But I have also used x86, PIC18, PIC32, and other parts. I'm not married to any part, I'm driven by the combination of hardware & software that gets the job done with the least hassle.
Much of the traffic in this forum is juvenile and unprofessional. Some folks apparently don't have any _real_ work to do...
I was working on mainframe computers in the early 1960s, and have been involved with microprocessors since about 1975 ...
'Reminds me of an encounter I had with a young lady at a local watering hole many years ago. She asked how long I'd been involved with computers. "Since the mid '60s," I replied. "Oh, wow!" she gushed, "You were doing it before it was fashionable!" Is it possible to feel avant garde and old at the same time?
I wonder what the professional users who Parallax is trying to attract will make of all this childishness? I think that they will find it rather off-putting and go elsewhere.
I wonder what the professional users who Parallax is trying to attract will make of all this childishness? I think that they will find it rather off-putting and go elsewhere.
Maybe they'll all go to your favorite place(s) and find peace in all the silence.
This forum is a vibrant and alive place. None of your trolling will put a stop to that.
Phil, you can't tell a story like that without telling us if you got her phone number.
A gentleman never tells!
I, on the other hand, don't mind divulging that being recognized for doing things before they're fashionable -- nerdy things, in particular -- does not guarantee, or even promote, further encounters with those of the female persuasion.
@jazzed: In my country, we have plenty of durians. I admit, I don't like the smell either. On times my parents bring some back home for snack time. You won't imagine how much it stank up the refrigerator, even when the container is sealed shut (the contents of that fruit is put inside the container)!
On other thing, everytime there's a X vs. Y, there would be more than 5 pages and a few thousand of views within a short time frame.
While the fanboys here are making a big show about "protecting" Parallax and sales of the Propeller...
I can't be certain of who you are talking about, but if I'm included in that group of "fanboys" then you have failed to understand my position. I'm not trying to protect Propeller sales. Nor am I trying to inhibit XMOS sales. I am simply pointing out that Leon lacks the credibility on these particular processors to advise potential developers. With respect to XMOS and P1 only his experience is largely limited to what doesn't work.
Does that help clarify things Kevin, or do you chose to continue to build up straw men so you can knock them down?
I wonder what the professional users who Parallax is trying to attract will make of all this childishness? I think that they will find it rather off-putting and go elsewhere.
I could tell you what most of my embedded developer buddies think of it, but most of the people here wouldn't like it.
Leon has his views and that's ok with me. He's been around enough that he knows better than to have a religious loyalty to a minute slab of silicon and he knows his stuff.
That said, fan bois are always a problem, they just really exist to hack people off. I remember them during the Pascal vs. C debates and later with OS/2 vs NT, good at driving down discourse and that's about it.
But I don't think these self-appointed forum cops are going to be welcomed by engineers who have experience with other micros and start comparing the Prop with whatever they are using at the moment. Slagging them because they point out something they see as a negative or are skeptical about the Prop doesn't cut it.
I can't be certain of who you are talking about, but if I'm included in that group of "fanboys" then you have failed to understand my position. I'm not trying to protect Propeller sales. Nor am I trying to inhibit XMOS sales. I am simply pointing out that Leon lacks the credibility on these particular processors to advise potential developers. With respect to XMOS and P1 only his experience is largely limited to what doesn't work.
And your motives for doing so are entirely altruistic, no doubt? For the good of the community?
I've spent some time on some other forums - many of them are absolutely toxic.
This forum is an oasis of calm and reasoned discussion by comparison.
Ross.
I agree 100%: There is a German forum at mikrocontroller.net... posting there guaranties a high level of trolling . And if you did not write in "proper German" even worst ! (Whatever "proper German" means...) It has quite knowledgeable people but they are few and far apart
And your motives for doing so are entirely altruistic, no doubt? For the good of the community?
That is precisely it. I hate attention - especially being the center of attention.
But this is a cause I believe in. That's way I'm willing to take all the abuse and even alienate a portion of the community against me. Truth is more important than popularity.
That is precisely it. I hate attention - especially being the center of attention.
But this is a cause I believe in. That's way I'm willing to take all the abuse and even alienate a portion of the community against me. Truth is more important than popularity.
Sorry K2, I haven't counted all your (many) posts in this thread but I am sure no one is giving any data on XMOS nor on P2 to help Andre understand better those ICs. You said you hate attention so pls stop blaming Leon, instead you should give some of your own data and experience on those mcs to help us all understand them better and instead of attention you will gain consideration.
PhiPi & Leon: Phil is right, the views of the thread are not proportional to the its quality nor technical degree. Even this not mean it's interesting. How nice would it be if we can judge/vote community contributions/posts eg. useful/ not useful and like/don't like.
Below each user's avatar, beside the post counter if should appear also a post vs useful ratio indication ... maybe the stars can be based on useful posts rather than just posts ( it's easy to gain posts filling up the test forum).
So finally being almost 40 and having experience (good or bad) in electronics from high school onward I like to hear EVERY TECHNICAL opinion and suggestion knowing that I am intelligent/skilled enough to make then the proper choice/idea.
I am advising in advance that I won't answer to any non technical reply
Cheers
PEDIT: I think that the community has already loosen DeSilva ... it's enough.
Pro XMOS
(I have only programmed the G4 devices!, as I haven't tested my L1 board yet)... plenty of power, I mean the threads run FAST !, the assembler is not that difficult (I'd like some more registers but well...), timers and ports are quite high-level. Ports are buffered!, channels are buffered, that makes high speed communication between threads (also in another core) possible and just transparent (how the channels work and the instructions provided to access them). (I'd love something like that for the prop). But, making your own board is no way as easy as with the propeller. The prop is simpler, works with far less (and no, they are IMHO not comparable!). The P2 could then be compared to current XMOS devices, sadly we do not have yet any P2 .
Sorry K2, I haven't counted all your (many) posts in this thread but I am sure no one is giving any data on XMOS nor on P2 to help Andre understand better those ICs.
I believe you have lost sight of the OP's question. He wondered, among other things, why there weren't more projects on YouTube and elsewhere that were powered by XMOS. My answer is simple: The XMOS is a royal pain in the *** to do anything non-trivial with. Leon's own experiences with XMOS is proof of this. He won't talk about his XMOS failures so I have little choice except to point them out myself.
BTW, if you think deSilva and Leon are equally versed and equally competent on P1 then you aren't paying attention. Where are Leon's OBEX contributions, PASM tutorials, or forum help with coding issues? He opines on other matters all the time. But where is any P1 code or code fragment he ever wrote? Every expert on this forum can point to many such contributions. He can't. Same with XMOS. When he was challenged directly by Jazzed to come up with a rather simple memory interface using XMOS, he couldn't. And there is not a peep from him as to why. XMOS is too difficult for him to use, but it is the perfect platform for everyone else. He is clearly not operating in the interest of the earnest enquirer.
DeSilva... I haven't heard that name in a while... and yes we sadly lost him, but he was always loose ;-)
Sorry for my english, it's currently my 3rd language ... I am doing my best to improve it, but I haven't always time to re-read the message prior to posting. What matters is that we have understood each other ;D
If I remember correctly I had an agreement with PhiPi to correct my spelling/grammar errors ... isn't it? :P
- clocked buffered I/O makes some things VERY easy
- more MIPS
- channels between cores/chips
- a G4 effectively has 16 x 100Mhz "threads" roughly equivalent to cogs, or 32 not quite as deterministic roughly 50Mhz threads
P2 advantages (based on available preliminary data)
- ADC & DAC on every pin
- "saner" I/O mapping
- >100Mhz I/O
- easy video generation
- CLUT
- 8x 160Mhz (estimated) hard deterministic cogs
Until I can try both side by side, that is the best I can do for a tech comparison
Both will be a pain to prototype with (unless using breakout boards)
Both will have a place in the market, and most people will choose the processor based on how well it fits their application/budget.
Re: Why there are not more Xmos projects out there.
I think it all comes down to barrier to entry. The hardware requires considerable skill to put to use because it operates above "hobby friendly" clocks, and that means $$$ and time to get going. A quick comparison between that, the Prop which has a lower barrier to entry, and say the Arduino which can be really cheap and cookie cutter, shows that barrier to entry directly relates to project activity.
Tech features aside, that is IMHO, the white elephant. XMOS has higher code complexity, higher hardware complexity, and higher cost.
Prop has a range of code complexity, from pretty easy, most things moderate, ranging up to hard, depending on what one wants to do, hardware complexity ranges from easy to moderate, and cost is just a shade above low, probably moderate.
A arduino has low code complexity, because it's templated well, though it can get to hard pretty quick, with the moderate range being iffy, hardware complexity is low, cost is generally low, but can be moderate.
The other "white elephant" is overall atmosphere. The XMOS crowd seems nice enough, but not really introductory. That's just my take on reading and exploring I did early on. Prop has a introductory feel. Arduino has a very introductory feel. That all comes down to community and evangelism. There isn't much on XMOS, and if there was, I think some additional activity would be seen, but the barrier remains high.
IMHO, a lot of people, who are not pros, will select this stuff based on some very coarse metrics like what I've posted here. Tech specs help, and demonstration / reference designs help a lot.
@Andre' given that, there is a niche for what you do, but some work to lower the barrier to entry significantly, IMHO.
Re: Community here.
I think we are largely pretty great. Harpit did note some people reading who feel inhibited. DeSilva left over drama, and a general lack of appreciation for his hard core technical approach. I personally think a fair slice of members at that time didn't understand him either, with some hard edged humor and interaction that's could easily be taken wrong. He maxed out his skills, and moved on, as stated in his last posts.
Today, the general battle that occurs with XMOS being mentioned is mostly silly, and I don't understand why that is. One core element appears to be some passion for this chip, and some appreciation for Parallax, which leads to "turf", as in "our turf, go play elsewhere" particularly given there are lots of places to play elsewhere, but not so many places that have the focus on Prop as we do here. That's valuable, and defensible, which is why the push back happens. There you go. My arm-chair analysis of things. I could be wrong, likely am, but... what else to say?
Frankly, I am perfectly secure in the various discussions, always interested in other devices, but really am just using Props because I like them, and have no real need for other things, unless they are old, and have say... 8 bits!
Re: Leon
IMHO, he's got some of the same problem DeSilva had, in that I don't think he's well understood.
@Leon: Your case would be helped considerably by simply adding value to the community you participate in. You do this with PCB layouts and such, and that's appreciated. Maybe not always noticed, but appreciated by those that do. Maybe participating in some code and or problem solving discussions would change perceptions considerably. No worries here, but since the meta-conversation is happening, I thought I would toss that in.
Edit: There are some great skills present here. When some air of authority is presented, there are some who would challenge that, because they've the skills to do so. The only rational response is to contribute back in like kind. Post up some code, and that air of authority may be considerably better received. That's my take, offered in the spirit of building community, not dividing, nor devaluing it, or it's members. That's how I like to roll.
@All: IMHO, we do run the risk of driving folks away. I know of a few cases personally where people walked off, some have returned and are looking to have fun and do stuff, not get drama. It's a consideration for all of us, and something worth thinking over. We do have the PM function, and we do have regular incoming folks who may not know us as well as we do ourselves. Most of us can take the hits and enjoy a little play with one another. Not always true for new folks, and there are the notes that Harpit got.
XMOS devices are primarily intended for use by professionals, but also appeal to advanced hobbyists and university students. The Propeller is the other way round, a device that was originally designed for hobbyists that Parallax is now attempting to market more widely to professionals.
The two companies are similar in some ways - they have about the same number of staff (50 or so) and both devices were designed by two people.
I have had the XMOS IDE and XC on my own machine before. For really simple things, it is no more difficult to use than an ARM. But if you think you can easily exploit the features that make XMOS uniquely XMOS, you are sniffing glue. One can rattle off a whole list of features, but they are all meaningless if you can't make them work. I know specific cases where very intelligent and motivated individuals wasted months of their lives on XMOS and finally gave up in disgust.
XMOS devices are primarily intended for use by professionals, but also appeal to advanced hobbyists and university students. The Propeller is the other way round, a device that was originally designed for hobbyists that Parallax is now attempting to market more widely to professionals.
The two companies are similar in some ways - they have about the same number of staff (50 or so) and both devices were designed by two people.
Why don't we freeze the waters, unite the lands, and make the mospeller ?!?
... I am kidding
IMO, the right tools should make any architecture easy to develop for and can level the playing field among the various devices. Granted, some architectures will be harder to write those tools for than others; and perhaps the XMOS is one of those devices. Better tools might make it more approachable, rather than just throwing C and Eclipse at it and calling it good because that's what "everybody" does and what "professional" users expect. 'Kind of like eating your vegetables because they're good for you, not because they taste good. By contrast, it's obvious that a lot of thought went into Spin and the Propeller Tool to make it taste good, and that's one of the reasons the Propeller can be viewed as an entry-level device. I hope Parallax never loses sight of that advantage in its quest to woo professional developers. Otherwise, the playing field between the P2 and the XMOS might end up being level by default.
XMOS does have some nice tools, and they aren't difficult to use. The compilers are based on gcc, and should be familiar to most developers who have used other 32-bit devices like ARMs and PIC32s, and the IDE is Eclipse. Everything can be done from the command line, for those people that don't like using IDEs. The debugger and simulator are very good, and then there is the XMOS Timing Analyzer (XTA). The latter does a detailed timing analysis of one's program, including the comms between threads and cores. Exploiting parallelism between cores and devices is much easier with XMOS than on the Propeller, because of the high-speed XLinks and the features of the XC language. The documentation is somewhat variable, but the various tutorials are excellent.
By contrast, it's obvious that a lot of thought went into Spin and the Propeller Tool to make it taste good, and that's one of the reasons the Propeller can be viewed as an entry-level device. I hope Parallax never loses sight of that advantage in its quest to woo professional developers. Otherwise, the playing field between the P2 and the XMOS might end up being level by default.
Comments
Hi Phil.
Leon's fame extends far beyond the civilized and pleasant shores of our Propeller forums.
But I agree his postings in this thread are perfectly legitimate.
Ross.
While the fanboys here are making a big show about "protecting" Parallax and sales of the Propeller, that's all it is - a show. If they truly cared about Parallax (IMO, they don't, it's just self-centered attention grabbing), they would stop their public display of foaming at the mouth.
The fact is, people coming from "other" systems need to make objective comparisons between the Propeller and those other systems. Coming here and not being able to rationally and objectively discuss these issues just pushes them away. This thread is a perfect example. Andre' asked a question, and the fanboys quickly overtook the discussion, turning it into, once again, a bash Leon fest.
IMO, this is as much Parallax's fault as not. First, there was a lot of "Propeller flag waving" when the chip was first released, which some have taken to an extreme. Secondly, Parallax has taken a very hands-off approach to moderating these forums. When people get out of line, they don't say anything. Thirdly, while Ken Gracey made an open request / rebuke towards Leon wrt the XMOS, he didn't do the same towards the fanboys, which I believe has only emboldened them to continue openly hostile posting towards other forum members.
These forums have become something that they weren't when I first joined. There is much less a sense of community than there was in the past, and ironically, it all seems to be centered around the Propeller chip. I guess if that's the way Parallax wants it, then that's what they'll get. But if it's not, I hope they'll make an effort to do something about it.
The Propeller is a powerful but quirky MCU that makes sense in many applications. I have used it in several designs, including one that is mil-spec & flight-qualified. But I have also used x86, PIC18, PIC32, and other parts. I'm not married to any part, I'm driven by the combination of hardware & software that gets the job done with the least hassle.
Much of the traffic in this forum is juvenile and unprofessional. Some folks apparently don't have any _real_ work to do...
-Phil
I wonder what the professional users who Parallax is trying to attract will make of all this childishness? I think that they will find it rather off-putting and go elsewhere.
Maybe they'll all go to your favorite place(s) and find peace in all the silence.
This forum is a vibrant and alive place. None of your trolling will put a stop to that.
A gentleman never tells!
I, on the other hand, don't mind divulging that being recognized for doing things before they're fashionable -- nerdy things, in particular -- does not guarantee, or even promote, further encounters with those of the female persuasion.
-Phil
On other thing, everytime there's a X vs. Y, there would be more than 5 pages and a few thousand of views within a short time frame.
I can't be certain of who you are talking about, but if I'm included in that group of "fanboys" then you have failed to understand my position. I'm not trying to protect Propeller sales. Nor am I trying to inhibit XMOS sales. I am simply pointing out that Leon lacks the credibility on these particular processors to advise potential developers. With respect to XMOS and P1 only his experience is largely limited to what doesn't work.
Does that help clarify things Kevin, or do you chose to continue to build up straw men so you can knock them down?
I could tell you what most of my embedded developer buddies think of it, but most of the people here wouldn't like it.
I've spent some time on some other forums - many of them are absolutely toxic.
This forum is an oasis of calm and reasoned discussion by comparison.
Ross.
That said, fan bois are always a problem, they just really exist to hack people off. I remember them during the Pascal vs. C debates and later with OS/2 vs NT, good at driving down discourse and that's about it.
But I don't think these self-appointed forum cops are going to be welcomed by engineers who have experience with other micros and start comparing the Prop with whatever they are using at the moment. Slagging them because they point out something they see as a negative or are skeptical about the Prop doesn't cut it.
I agree 100%: There is a German forum at mikrocontroller.net... posting there guaranties a high level of trolling
That is precisely it. I hate attention - especially being the center of attention.
But this is a cause I believe in. That's way I'm willing to take all the abuse and even alienate a portion of the community against me. Truth is more important than popularity.
Sorry K2, I haven't counted all your (many) posts in this thread but I am sure no one is giving any data on XMOS nor on P2 to help Andre understand better those ICs. You said you hate attention so pls stop blaming Leon, instead you should give some of your own data and experience on those mcs to help us all understand them better and instead of attention you will gain consideration.
PhiPi & Leon: Phil is right, the views of the thread are not proportional to the its quality nor technical degree. Even this not mean it's interesting. How nice would it be if we can judge/vote community contributions/posts eg. useful/ not useful and like/don't like.
Below each user's avatar, beside the post counter if should appear also a post vs useful ratio indication ... maybe the stars can be based on useful posts rather than just posts ( it's easy to gain posts filling up the test forum).
So finally being almost 40 and having experience (good or bad) in electronics from high school onward I like to hear EVERY TECHNICAL opinion and suggestion knowing that I am intelligent/skilled enough to make then the proper choice/idea.
I am advising in advance that I won't answer to any non technical reply
Cheers
PEDIT: I think that the community has already loosen DeSilva ... it's enough.
(I have only programmed the G4 devices!, as I haven't tested my L1 board yet)... plenty of power, I mean the threads run FAST !, the assembler is not that difficult (I'd like some more registers but well...), timers and ports are quite high-level. Ports are buffered!, channels are buffered, that makes high speed communication between threads (also in another core) possible and just transparent (how the channels work and the instructions provided to access them). (I'd love something like that for the prop). But, making your own board is no way as easy as with the propeller. The prop is simpler, works with far less (and no, they are IMHO not comparable!). The P2 could then be compared to current XMOS devices, sadly we do not have yet any P2
DeSilva... I haven't heard that name in a while... and yes we sadly lost him, but he was always loose ;-)
I believe you have lost sight of the OP's question. He wondered, among other things, why there weren't more projects on YouTube and elsewhere that were powered by XMOS. My answer is simple: The XMOS is a royal pain in the *** to do anything non-trivial with. Leon's own experiences with XMOS is proof of this. He won't talk about his XMOS failures so I have little choice except to point them out myself.
BTW, if you think deSilva and Leon are equally versed and equally competent on P1 then you aren't paying attention. Where are Leon's OBEX contributions, PASM tutorials, or forum help with coding issues? He opines on other matters all the time. But where is any P1 code or code fragment he ever wrote? Every expert on this forum can point to many such contributions. He can't. Same with XMOS. When he was challenged directly by Jazzed to come up with a rather simple memory interface using XMOS, he couldn't. And there is not a peep from him as to why. XMOS is too difficult for him to use, but it is the perfect platform for everyone else.
Sorry for my english, it's currently my 3rd language ... I am doing my best to improve it, but I haven't always time to re-read the message prior to posting. What matters is that we have understood each other ;D
If I remember correctly I had an agreement with PhiPi to correct my spelling/grammar errors ... isn't it? :P
- clocked buffered I/O makes some things VERY easy
- more MIPS
- channels between cores/chips
- a G4 effectively has 16 x 100Mhz "threads" roughly equivalent to cogs, or 32 not quite as deterministic roughly 50Mhz threads
P2 advantages (based on available preliminary data)
- ADC & DAC on every pin
- "saner" I/O mapping
- >100Mhz I/O
- easy video generation
- CLUT
- 8x 160Mhz (estimated) hard deterministic cogs
Until I can try both side by side, that is the best I can do for a tech comparison
Both will be a pain to prototype with (unless using breakout boards)
Both will have a place in the market, and most people will choose the processor based on how well it fits their application/budget.
I think it all comes down to barrier to entry. The hardware requires considerable skill to put to use because it operates above "hobby friendly" clocks, and that means $$$ and time to get going. A quick comparison between that, the Prop which has a lower barrier to entry, and say the Arduino which can be really cheap and cookie cutter, shows that barrier to entry directly relates to project activity.
Tech features aside, that is IMHO, the white elephant. XMOS has higher code complexity, higher hardware complexity, and higher cost.
Prop has a range of code complexity, from pretty easy, most things moderate, ranging up to hard, depending on what one wants to do, hardware complexity ranges from easy to moderate, and cost is just a shade above low, probably moderate.
A arduino has low code complexity, because it's templated well, though it can get to hard pretty quick, with the moderate range being iffy, hardware complexity is low, cost is generally low, but can be moderate.
The other "white elephant" is overall atmosphere. The XMOS crowd seems nice enough, but not really introductory. That's just my take on reading and exploring I did early on. Prop has a introductory feel. Arduino has a very introductory feel. That all comes down to community and evangelism. There isn't much on XMOS, and if there was, I think some additional activity would be seen, but the barrier remains high.
IMHO, a lot of people, who are not pros, will select this stuff based on some very coarse metrics like what I've posted here. Tech specs help, and demonstration / reference designs help a lot.
@Andre' given that, there is a niche for what you do, but some work to lower the barrier to entry significantly, IMHO.
Re: Community here.
I think we are largely pretty great. Harpit did note some people reading who feel inhibited. DeSilva left over drama, and a general lack of appreciation for his hard core technical approach. I personally think a fair slice of members at that time didn't understand him either, with some hard edged humor and interaction that's could easily be taken wrong. He maxed out his skills, and moved on, as stated in his last posts.
Today, the general battle that occurs with XMOS being mentioned is mostly silly, and I don't understand why that is. One core element appears to be some passion for this chip, and some appreciation for Parallax, which leads to "turf", as in "our turf, go play elsewhere" particularly given there are lots of places to play elsewhere, but not so many places that have the focus on Prop as we do here. That's valuable, and defensible, which is why the push back happens. There you go. My arm-chair analysis of things. I could be wrong, likely am, but... what else to say?
Frankly, I am perfectly secure in the various discussions, always interested in other devices, but really am just using Props because I like them, and have no real need for other things, unless they are old, and have say... 8 bits!
Re: Leon
IMHO, he's got some of the same problem DeSilva had, in that I don't think he's well understood.
@Leon: Your case would be helped considerably by simply adding value to the community you participate in. You do this with PCB layouts and such, and that's appreciated. Maybe not always noticed, but appreciated by those that do. Maybe participating in some code and or problem solving discussions would change perceptions considerably. No worries here, but since the meta-conversation is happening, I thought I would toss that in.
Edit: There are some great skills present here. When some air of authority is presented, there are some who would challenge that, because they've the skills to do so. The only rational response is to contribute back in like kind. Post up some code, and that air of authority may be considerably better received. That's my take, offered in the spirit of building community, not dividing, nor devaluing it, or it's members. That's how I like to roll.
@All: IMHO, we do run the risk of driving folks away. I know of a few cases personally where people walked off, some have returned and are looking to have fun and do stuff, not get drama. It's a consideration for all of us, and something worth thinking over. We do have the PM function, and we do have regular incoming folks who may not know us as well as we do ourselves. Most of us can take the hits and enjoy a little play with one another. Not always true for new folks, and there are the notes that Harpit got.
Cheers all, that's my answer.
The two companies are similar in some ways - they have about the same number of staff (50 or so) and both devices were designed by two people.
I have had the XMOS IDE and XC on my own machine before. For really simple things, it is no more difficult to use than an ARM. But if you think you can easily exploit the features that make XMOS uniquely XMOS, you are sniffing glue. One can rattle off a whole list of features, but they are all meaningless if you can't make them work. I know specific cases where very intelligent and motivated individuals wasted months of their lives on XMOS and finally gave up in disgust.
Full disclosure should be a moral imperative.
Why don't we freeze the waters, unite the lands, and make the mospeller ?!?
... I am kidding
Funny!
-Phil