'
I'm about ready to call it off my self.
'
Parallax flat out refusues to suport any of the great compliers out now.
'
And then theres the WiFi thing.
'
The WiFi intro with all the photos.
'
And then the E.O.L. before it was ever relased. WTF!
If you're just angling for a deep discount on the Catalina C compiler, well you can forget it!
From now on, no more discounts - everybody pays full price!
Yup. The optimizer which you will eventually need is not free.
I think most people realize the cost of development has to be borne somewhere, Jazzed.
You get paid by Parallax, so your costs are factored into the cost of every Propeller chip, whether users realize it or not. I get paid directly by users, so my costs are only borne by those who perceive there is some value in what I do.
Ross.
P.S. You don't need the optimizer. Catalina is 100% functional without it.
I do what Parallax asks me to do. Catalina could have been adopted wholesale, but it wasn't; there were apparently reasons for that.
Parallax did not ask me to post this. It is my own opinion. It is also my opinion that you should mention the optimizer costs extra when promoting Catalina as a free product.
A lot of software has free "community editions" and paid versions that have more functionality and support. I think Ross bends over backwards to help people with using Catalina and I see nothing wrong with charging for the optimizer. The negative vibes around here are getting old.
It IS true that Catalina is a FREE C Compiler for the propeller.
You don't have to have the optimizer, and it is a mere $20.00 if you want it.
Given all the constant crying over Arduino and hand wringing over when Prop II will be a reality it seems we should back Ross in providing a bit of light in what seems to be growing darkness.
Sorry if it sounds that way. I just expect the truth.
The truth is that Catalina is - and will probably remain for a while yet - the only fully supported, fully functional, 100% ANSI compliant, 100% FREE C compiler for the Propeller.
I also choose to offer additional Catalina software for a nominal fee to help defray the cost of the many Propeller platforms and other paraphernalia I have to buy to keep supporting it. This does not detract one whit from the truth of the preceding statement.
I have no problem with you raising technical issues with Catalina, or criticizing it on reasonable grounds, but your continual partisan sniping, nitpicking and insinuations are just becoming a bit tiresome, and also do not reflect very well on Parallax - a company which owes much of its success to the efforts of many of the people in these forums.
I am sure Parallax had their reasons for not choosing Catalina as their main C frontrunner. I don't know much about the GCC software, but i am assuming many people already use it? Maybe Parallax is trying to enter into a software package that is already popular? Makes sense i guess?... As for Catalina, i was planning on downloading it tonight to see how it is. Just when i think the Prop has reached it's end, somebody does something amazing:)
As for Catalina, i was planning on downloading it tonight to see how it is
That sounds great. The setup really is simple and you don't need the optimiser because it is already really fast. (and if you ever want more speed, there is much we can still do on the hardware side.). And it is free.
So now the C89 has been dropped from Catalina's 100% ANSI claim. Is this a new trend?
Did it have anything to do with those non-ANSI-C89 comment markers // Catalina tolerates ?
Maybe a strict option should be added. Just being technical.
Now, I think I may have mentioned nitpicking in my previous posting. Also, you are really not covering either Parallax or yourself in glory by putting your ignorance about C related matters on such open display.
In 1983, the American National Standards Institute formed a committee, X3J11, to establish a standard specification of C. After a long and arduous process, the standard was completed in 1989 and ratified as ANSI X3.159-1989 "Programming Language C." This version of the language is often referred to as "ANSI C", or sometimes "C89" (to distinguish it from C99).
Oh, and by the way - before you try to claim that GCC has greater a greater degree of ANSI compliance, you might want to first check out this web site. There are four C99 compilers listed, and GCC is not one of them. From a C perspective, GCC is also just "ANSI C". Just being technical.
Whoops... Don't know how i stirred this up? That is what i get for trying to leave:)
Not your fault, Ravenkallen. If it makes you feel any better, I'm now seriously considering the same option myself - those Arduino's are beginning to look mighty appealing
@RossH... That is it though. We shouldn't have to choose one or the other. I will give the Arduino a second chance, but i will never forget my first love(Fanboy moment lol), the Propeller. So, after a longggg installation, Catalina is installed and a MS Word window opened with instructions which i am reading as we speak:)
@RossH... That is it though. We shouldn't have to choose one or the other. I will give the Arduino a second chance, but i will never forget my first love(Fanboy moment lol), the Propeller. So, after a longggg installation, Catalina is installed and a MS Word window opened with instructions which i am reading as we speak:)
You mean the installation took a long time? That's a bit odd. It should only take a minute or two - although it does have to unpack quite a lot of files, so it may take longer on a slower disk. I have thought about making the "source" tree an optional part of the install. Maybe I should do that for the next release.
Anyway, I think it would be in everyone's interest if we just let this thread die, so if you have any Catalina questions, please raise them in this thread.
@RossH... Yeah, but i did have a few other windows open(And music playing) so that might have slowed it down. Plus, my computer is a little single core Toshiba, with 2 Gigs of RAM. Not exactly a beast. It took like 10-15 minutes... I am in favor of letting this thread die, but after all that, i am sure somebody is going to have something to say:)
You mean the installation took a long time? That's a bit odd.
Maybe Ravenkallen is talking about the download speed? If so, I know how he feels. My kids just used up the monthly 30 gigabytes in two weeks so I am on dial up speed for the rest of the month!
The 'install' part of Catalina takes less than a minute.
I am looking forward to seeing a photo of a 'hello world' soon.
Oh, and by the way - before you try to claim that GCC has greater a greater degree of ANSI compliance, you might want to first check out this web site. There are four C99 compilers listed, and GCC is not one of them. From a C perspective, GCC is also just "ANSI C". Just being technical.
Oh, and GCC also supports // for comments.
Ross.
I accept this technicality. Just ANSI C is fine by me
GCC has an ANSI-C89 mode where // is not supported.
We are porting GCC to the Propeller. That is the requirement.
We meet the standards that GCC meets and that is perfectly fine.
@Ravenkallen, sorry to disturb your thread, but I see you have
taken positive Propeller action so it couldn't have been all that bad.
I accept this technicality. Just ANSI C is fine by me
GCC has an ANSI-C89 mode where // is not supported.
We are porting GCC to the Propeller. That is the requirement.
We meet the standards that GCC meets and that is perfectly fine.
I note that you didn't answer the other point of my post, and also that you deleted your own post, to which I was responding.
This is both unprofessional and discourteous. I am tempted to complain to Parallax about your behavior in this thread - it does not meet the minimum standards that I would expect of the people who claim to represent that company. It would also seem to be in violation of the forum guidelines.
We are all allowed to delete threads. I deleted that thread because I thought it was the right thing to do. That is, I decided it was probably more inflammatory than necessary and changed my mind about it being posted. I am only sorry that I decided to hit submit. I am not sorry I deleted it, and I have absolutely no intention to apologize anymore than I have apologized already.
If Parallax has a problem with that, they are welcome to do whatever they see fit.
We are all allowed to delete threads. I deleted that thread because I thought it was the right thing to do. That is, I decided it was probably more inflammatory than necessary and changed my mind about it being posted. I am only sorry that I decided to hit submit. I am not sorry I deleted it, and I have absolutely no intention to apologize anymore than I have apologized already.
If Parallax has a problem with that, they are welcome to do whatever they see fit.
More inflammatory "than necessary"? Why did you think it was necessary to be inflammatory at all?
Being sorry that you posted something that made you look foolish is not quite the same as apologizing for your behavior in the first place. However, I accept that this is all the apology I am likely to get, so I am content to move onto other things.
There's a growing trend for the model that Ross is using called "open core", where there is a core product that is freely open-sourced, and additional add-ons/functionality that are commercially licensed.
The only way I personally would object to Ross offering the optimizer for $ is if he purposely limited the free version... and by limited, I mean seriously reduced functionality, not just less optimized code. And by object, I mean not buy it, or complain about paying $20. I would buy it if I needed it.
Of course, Catalina being open-sourced, anybody is free to create their own optimizer and compete financially with Ross. I would much rather have Ross follow this business model than that followed by many OSS companies, where you're forced to pay an annual subscription fee to have access to the software. IMO, if you want to make your software free, make it free. Likewise, if you want to charge for it, then do so. But the "it's free, but it costs $$$ to use" model is a bit of a bait and switch.
... the time has come for me to get over my fear of C/ C++. I have now pledged most of my spare time to learning C/ C++ using an Arduino (And then moving on to ARM's, Mbeds, AVRS and all that). I am not completely abandoning the Propeller, but rather taking a extended "holiday" from it.
Fortunately, micros are NOT like girlfriends -- they don't get upset if you have more than one! The "problem" with C is its power: the more powerful a language, the fewer things it will NOT let you do, and there is less need for workarounds. (For instance, you can do "C = 'B' - 0x41;" in C, but not in Pascal.)
C has been ported to quite a few micros, and therefore it is easy for someone who learned it for a 6809 to apply that knowledge to an 8051 C compiler, to a COP-8 C compiler, to an HPC C compiler, to an Arduino, etc. Of course, each compiler has its own oddities: The HPC compiler will accept loop(n) {}, which -- as far as I know -- no other C compiler will accept. But once you have the basics down, you can apply them to a multitude of micros.
Nuts & Volts magazine ran a (long) series on "C on Microcontrollers for Dummies," with Joe Whats-his-name from SmileyMicros.com. I thought it was good, even though I let my subscription lapse!
As to languages, you will learn that different languages have different strengths. For me, if I want to use the serial port, and diddle with strings, BASIC ("OPEN COM1, 9600,8,N,1" and "A$=LEFT$(MyInput$,3)") is easy, whereas C is great for filters (See "CAT.C" in the K&R book.). And FORTH is great as a "Write-Once, Read-Never" language. <Ducking & Running!>
So, expand your horizons, and don't be afraid to experiment!
Comments
If you're just angling for a deep discount on the Catalina C compiler, well you can forget it!
From now on, no more discounts - everybody pays full price!
Ross.
Bingo! Another potential sale lost! I'll be rooooooned!
Ross.
How about an educational license? Get the kids hooked young and then they pop for the full version!
I think most people realize the cost of development has to be borne somewhere, Jazzed.
You get paid by Parallax, so your costs are factored into the cost of every Propeller chip, whether users realize it or not. I get paid directly by users, so my costs are only borne by those who perceive there is some value in what I do.
Ross.
P.S. You don't need the optimizer. Catalina is 100% functional without it.
Parallax did not ask me to post this. It is my own opinion. It is also my opinion that you should mention the optimizer costs extra when promoting Catalina as a free product.
C.W.
You don't have to have the optimizer, and it is a mere $20.00 if you want it.
Given all the constant crying over Arduino and hand wringing over when Prop II will be a reality it seems we should back Ross in providing a bit of light in what seems to be growing darkness.
C.W.
The truth is that Catalina is - and will probably remain for a while yet - the only fully supported, fully functional, 100% ANSI compliant, 100% FREE C compiler for the Propeller.
I also choose to offer additional Catalina software for a nominal fee to help defray the cost of the many Propeller platforms and other paraphernalia I have to buy to keep supporting it. This does not detract one whit from the truth of the preceding statement.
I have no problem with you raising technical issues with Catalina, or criticizing it on reasonable grounds, but your continual partisan sniping, nitpicking and insinuations are just becoming a bit tiresome, and also do not reflect very well on Parallax - a company which owes much of its success to the efforts of many of the people in these forums.
Ross.
Ravenkallen, gcc is used to build GNU/Linux, so nothing with major impact on the software industry.
That sounds great. The setup really is simple and you don't need the optimiser because it is already really fast. (and if you ever want more speed, there is much we can still do on the hardware side.). And it is free.
What hardware platform do you have?
Now, I think I may have mentioned nitpicking in my previous posting. Also, you are really not covering either Parallax or yourself in glory by putting your ignorance about C related matters on such open display.
See this definition of ANSI C. Here is a brief extract (the bold highlighting is mine):
Oh, and by the way - before you try to claim that GCC has greater a greater degree of ANSI compliance, you might want to first check out this web site. There are four C99 compilers listed, and GCC is not one of them. From a C perspective, GCC is also just "ANSI C". Just being technical.
Oh, and GCC also supports // for comments.
Ross.
@Dr_Acula... I have a ASC.
Not your fault, Ravenkallen. If it makes you feel any better, I'm now seriously considering the same option myself - those Arduino's are beginning to look mighty appealing
Ross.
You mean the installation took a long time? That's a bit odd. It should only take a minute or two - although it does have to unpack quite a lot of files, so it may take longer on a slower disk. I have thought about making the "source" tree an optional part of the install. Maybe I should do that for the next release.
Anyway, I think it would be in everyone's interest if we just let this thread die, so if you have any Catalina questions, please raise them in this thread.
Ross.
Maybe Ravenkallen is talking about the download speed? If so, I know how he feels. My kids just used up the monthly 30 gigabytes in two weeks so I am on dial up speed for the rest of the month!
The 'install' part of Catalina takes less than a minute.
I am looking forward to seeing a photo of a 'hello world' soon.
In the skeleton program that pops up, add
printf("Hello World\n");GCC has an ANSI-C89 mode where // is not supported.
We are porting GCC to the Propeller. That is the requirement.
We meet the standards that GCC meets and that is perfectly fine.
@Ravenkallen, sorry to disturb your thread, but I see you have
taken positive Propeller action so it couldn't have been all that bad.
I note that you didn't answer the other point of my post, and also that you deleted your own post, to which I was responding.
This is both unprofessional and discourteous. I am tempted to complain to Parallax about your behavior in this thread - it does not meet the minimum standards that I would expect of the people who claim to represent that company. It would also seem to be in violation of the forum guidelines.
I think you should apologize.
Ross.
If Parallax has a problem with that, they are welcome to do whatever they see fit.
More inflammatory "than necessary"? Why did you think it was necessary to be inflammatory at all?
Being sorry that you posted something that made you look foolish is not quite the same as apologizing for your behavior in the first place. However, I accept that this is all the apology I am likely to get, so I am content to move onto other things.
Ross.
There's a growing trend for the model that Ross is using called "open core", where there is a core product that is freely open-sourced, and additional add-ons/functionality that are commercially licensed.
The only way I personally would object to Ross offering the optimizer for $ is if he purposely limited the free version... and by limited, I mean seriously reduced functionality, not just less optimized code. And by object, I mean not buy it, or complain about paying $20. I would buy it if I needed it.
Of course, Catalina being open-sourced, anybody is free to create their own optimizer and compete financially with Ross. I would much rather have Ross follow this business model than that followed by many OSS companies, where you're forced to pay an annual subscription fee to have access to the software. IMO, if you want to make your software free, make it free. Likewise, if you want to charge for it, then do so. But the "it's free, but it costs $$$ to use" model is a bit of a bait and switch.
Fortunately, micros are NOT like girlfriends -- they don't get upset if you have more than one!
C has been ported to quite a few micros, and therefore it is easy for someone who learned it for a 6809 to apply that knowledge to an 8051 C compiler, to a COP-8 C compiler, to an HPC C compiler, to an Arduino, etc. Of course, each compiler has its own oddities: The HPC compiler will accept loop(n) {}, which -- as far as I know -- no other C compiler will accept. But once you have the basics down, you can apply them to a multitude of micros.
Nuts & Volts magazine ran a (long) series on "C on Microcontrollers for Dummies," with Joe Whats-his-name from SmileyMicros.com. I thought it was good, even though I let my subscription lapse!
As to languages, you will learn that different languages have different strengths. For me, if I want to use the serial port, and diddle with strings, BASIC ("OPEN COM1, 9600,8,N,1" and "A$=LEFT$(MyInput$,3)") is easy, whereas C is great for filters (See "CAT.C" in the K&R book.). And FORTH is great as a "Write-Once, Read-Never" language. <Ducking & Running!>
So, expand your horizons, and don't be afraid to experiment!
--Rich
What do you think is the reason that makes certain forum members act with such disdain towards Catlina?
You didn't make them pay full price did you?
Keep up the excellent work!
Coley.