Parallax has certainly changed over the past year, and IMHO not for the better. We have some really great things done (for free) by some people such as Ross, Michael, Brad, etc. They all seem to have been ingored when it came to redoing what they had created. Is Parallax is becoming a Microsoft??? (remember how Microsoft killed Netscape).
I am beginning to wonder if publishing my work is worthwhile any more. I thought I was giving back to the community.
Of course your contribution is worthwhile. I understand we don't say thank you and show appreciation frequently enough.
As you know, we are creating a new development tool suite around Eclipse and GCC. We are doing this so we can run on any platform with existing code base. Everything we can publish for free as open-source, we do. When we can, we will work with others as you pointed out. You neglected to point out several efforts from the community which we have incorporated as our own. These include Roy's X86 to C compiler, numerous work from Phil Pilgrim, and the present arrangement that puts five (5) of you on our consultant payroll for the C effort around Propeller 1 (and Propeller 2).
In fact, Brad will use our C compiler. At last discussion he was waiting for it so he could release BST as open-source.
Have we made a set of Gadget Gangster boards, or have we fostered that business?
We're not trying to ignore anybody by doing this, but to make it easier for the whole community!
Cluso99,
I think you need to step back and look at all the data. It's clear to me you are coming at this without all the information.
Hi Roy,
Cluso has exactly the same information I have. So does everyone else in these forums. But this does kind of bring us back to my starting point, which was that a lot of the people affiliated with Parallax don't seem to realize how much we in the forums have to try and do by sheer guesswork - especially when it comes to preparing for the Propeller 2. Parallax has become very poor at sharing information, and perhaps doesn't even realize it.
I'm sure GCC will launch on the Prop 2 and be a great success for commercial users. But it does seem a shame that in order to make it so, Parallax have apparently decided not to share the information necessary for forum members to port all the other stuff currently available on the Prop 1 to the Prop 2. Stuff that people here use everyday. I understand Parallax is after new and bigger customers, but it just seems a poor return for all the work many of us have invested. It also seems a funny way to treat potential customers.
Anyway, I propose we let this thread die. The original question has been answered (thanks to Roy!). and we all seem to have made our respective points.
RossH,
The PropGCC folks don't have any Prop2 information that you don't also have. It's that simple. I wish you would accept that fact. The only people with more information on the Prop2 than you have are Parallax folks and myself (which I explained before, and even the small bits I know are not enough for you to do anything with). The simple fact is that Chip & Beau are still working on it, and things don't work like you seem to think they work with regards to the instruction set and other details. They are not already set in stone. They are still being tweaked and changed. Once it's set in stone, I am sure Parallax will release all the information you could ever want on the Prop 2. They want the Prop 2 to have as much support as possible when it comes out, and that includes community tools. The information we have all gotten about the Prop2 to date is unprecedented in the industry, and yet you complain because you don't have more.
The information/data I was speaking about in that line you quoted was more about the BST and Homespun stuff, or why parallax chose to port their own closed source x86 code to C/C++ and then open source that. The number one reason was that the community asked for it, including people like Brad (BST). The number two reason was that none of the existing ones were open source. There were long threads on the forums about these things. The reality is that I'm sure Cluso99 did at one time partake in these discussion, perhaps he forgot about it? So it wasn't fair of me to say he didn't have the information, perhaps it was more correct to say he forgot or chose to ignore it? The community wanted the official parallax compiler to be open source, Parallax is delivering on that, and Cluso99 insinuates that they are being evil. It's just absurd.
I'm tired of you saying Parallax is treating people poorly. It simply couldn't be farther from the truth. Just because you haven't received the information you want and seem to think Parallax has and is withholding, you are crying foul. I am certain that Ken wishes he had more concrete information to share with everyone. I'm certain that as soon as he does, he will share it. How could you complain about that or ask for more?
Roy
p.s. You know, if you us my stuff with Catalina, you'll get a lot of Prop2 stuff done for you. Brad is going to use it with BST, and he'll get it too. Imagine that, Parallax helping all the community tools get upgraded to Prop2. You just have to wait for stuff to finalize and then Chip, Jeff, and I will implement the new stuff. How is that in ANY way hindering the community tools from getting Prop2 goodness?
You know, if you us my stuff with Catalina, you'll get a lot of Prop2 stuff done for you. Brad is going to use it with BST, and he'll get it too. Imagine that, Parallax helping all the community tools get upgraded to Prop2. You just have to wait for stuff to finalize and then Chip, Jeff, and I will implement the new stuff. How is that in ANY way hindering the community tools from getting Prop2 goodness?
Of course I intend to use your stuff. There seems to be a misconception here on your part as well. I use anybody's stuff if it will help me do what I want. I'm not interested in building stuff someone else has already built - and built better than I could. I used Parallax's Spin tool until I found a better one (Brad's). Then I found an even better one for my particular needs (Homespun) and switched to that. I'm interested in building on other people's stuff, not duplicating stuff that already exists.
As for the Propeller 2 - well, I may indeed be misinformed - but I thought the chip was supposed to be previewed soon, and released within months. If you're going to tell me that they don't have the instruction set sorted yet (I'll accept that there are still some "tweaks" to be done) then I'm afraid someone is telling porkies. Just not sure who.
I don't understand why Parallax fully endorsing and sponsoring open source, cross platform solutions for the Prop including Prop GCC and the new C version of the Spin compiler is making so many people grumpy. It may have taken a long time for Parallax to get behind the idea that open source is good and cross-platform is good but they appear to be fully into it now and I'm very excited by it.
We should not be grumpy that Chip does not want to release his x86 Spin compiler code. Especially when he will be approving a C/C++ reengineering of it as a "good workalike". The x86 code is not portable and the C code is far more accessible for enhancement by others as I'm sure will happen. Ultimately no implementation should be the definition of correctness of the implementation of a language anyway.
We should not be grumpy that there is a lack of info on Prop II. There is what there is. The chip is not out yet. In my experience it is not normal for processor vendors to generally release minute details of their designs prior to launch or even soon afterward. When I was at Northern Telecom we wanted to know why certain features of the i286 did not work as advertized. It took some months and an NDA before we got a document of may hundreds of pages describing all the bugs in that chip!!
All in all propeller land is looking very exciting just now from my perspective.
You may be confusing "open source" with "open communications" - they are not the same thing. You should try putting yourselves in the position of any of the many people in these forums like BradC, mpark, Hanno, Prof Braino, Bean, myself - or any of the other developers who have spent years developing independent software tools for the Propeller. In many cases these tools (or at least aspects of them) have had to be painfully reverse engineered from the Prop v1 because of a lack of adequate information - even after Parallax released the source code to the Spin VM!
Are you assuming that all possible development needs wills be satisfied with GCC? Or are you just happy to wait five years before the Prop v2 has a reasonable set of alternative tools and languages available for it? Because that's how long it took on the Prop v1!
In very short order, pretty much every tool related thing anyone has ever asked for will either be done, or possible without having to depend on "black box" components. This is a beautiful thing.
As for Prop II... I would much rather see it the quality of Prop I, than early, over spec'ed, etc...
Re: Left forums.
Well, maybe! It could be people are busy too. I sure am. Time will tell. Frankly, for those who did choose to leave, new developments may well have them return, or things like the Radio Shack sales channel may provide us newcomers. I do not see a cause for worry at this time.
Ross
You may be confusing "open source" with "open communications" - they are not the same thing. You should try putting yourselves in the position of any of the many people in these forums like BradC, mpark, Hanno, Prof Braino, Bean, myself - or any of the other developers who have spent years developing independent software tools for the Propeller. In many cases these tools (or at least aspects of them) have had to be painfully reverse engineered from the Prop v1 because of a lack of adequate information - even after Parallax released the source code to the Spin VM!
Personally if I was developing tools it would be for either profit or altruistic reasons in either case the information is available or it is not.
Ross
Are you assuming that all possible development needs wills be satisfied with GCC? Or are you just happy to wait five years before the Prop v2 has a reasonable set of alternative tools and languages available for it? Because that's how long it took on the Prop v1!
GCC is a real itch for you for some reason.
As the prop 2 is not available at this time I think this is an academic discussion, anyway I assume that there will be company provided tools that will either be good or not although I assume that for the chip to be successful the company provided tools will up to the task as it appeasrs that Parallax is evolving in this area.
Comments
Of course your contribution is worthwhile. I understand we don't say thank you and show appreciation frequently enough.
As you know, we are creating a new development tool suite around Eclipse and GCC. We are doing this so we can run on any platform with existing code base. Everything we can publish for free as open-source, we do. When we can, we will work with others as you pointed out. You neglected to point out several efforts from the community which we have incorporated as our own. These include Roy's X86 to C compiler, numerous work from Phil Pilgrim, and the present arrangement that puts five (5) of you on our consultant payroll for the C effort around Propeller 1 (and Propeller 2).
In fact, Brad will use our C compiler. At last discussion he was waiting for it so he could release BST as open-source.
Have we made a set of Gadget Gangster boards, or have we fostered that business?
We're not trying to ignore anybody by doing this, but to make it easier for the whole community!
Come on, Cluso99!
Ken Gracey
Hi Roy,
Cluso has exactly the same information I have. So does everyone else in these forums. But this does kind of bring us back to my starting point, which was that a lot of the people affiliated with Parallax don't seem to realize how much we in the forums have to try and do by sheer guesswork - especially when it comes to preparing for the Propeller 2. Parallax has become very poor at sharing information, and perhaps doesn't even realize it.
I'm sure GCC will launch on the Prop 2 and be a great success for commercial users. But it does seem a shame that in order to make it so, Parallax have apparently decided not to share the information necessary for forum members to port all the other stuff currently available on the Prop 1 to the Prop 2. Stuff that people here use everyday. I understand Parallax is after new and bigger customers, but it just seems a poor return for all the work many of us have invested. It also seems a funny way to treat potential customers.
Anyway, I propose we let this thread die. The original question has been answered (thanks to Roy!). and we all seem to have made our respective points.
Ross.
The PropGCC folks don't have any Prop2 information that you don't also have. It's that simple. I wish you would accept that fact. The only people with more information on the Prop2 than you have are Parallax folks and myself (which I explained before, and even the small bits I know are not enough for you to do anything with). The simple fact is that Chip & Beau are still working on it, and things don't work like you seem to think they work with regards to the instruction set and other details. They are not already set in stone. They are still being tweaked and changed. Once it's set in stone, I am sure Parallax will release all the information you could ever want on the Prop 2. They want the Prop 2 to have as much support as possible when it comes out, and that includes community tools. The information we have all gotten about the Prop2 to date is unprecedented in the industry, and yet you complain because you don't have more.
The information/data I was speaking about in that line you quoted was more about the BST and Homespun stuff, or why parallax chose to port their own closed source x86 code to C/C++ and then open source that. The number one reason was that the community asked for it, including people like Brad (BST). The number two reason was that none of the existing ones were open source. There were long threads on the forums about these things. The reality is that I'm sure Cluso99 did at one time partake in these discussion, perhaps he forgot about it? So it wasn't fair of me to say he didn't have the information, perhaps it was more correct to say he forgot or chose to ignore it? The community wanted the official parallax compiler to be open source, Parallax is delivering on that, and Cluso99 insinuates that they are being evil. It's just absurd.
I'm tired of you saying Parallax is treating people poorly. It simply couldn't be farther from the truth. Just because you haven't received the information you want and seem to think Parallax has and is withholding, you are crying foul. I am certain that Ken wishes he had more concrete information to share with everyone. I'm certain that as soon as he does, he will share it. How could you complain about that or ask for more?
Roy
p.s. You know, if you us my stuff with Catalina, you'll get a lot of Prop2 stuff done for you. Brad is going to use it with BST, and he'll get it too. Imagine that, Parallax helping all the community tools get upgraded to Prop2. You just have to wait for stuff to finalize and then Chip, Jeff, and I will implement the new stuff. How is that in ANY way hindering the community tools from getting Prop2 goodness?
Of course I intend to use your stuff. There seems to be a misconception here on your part as well. I use anybody's stuff if it will help me do what I want. I'm not interested in building stuff someone else has already built - and built better than I could. I used Parallax's Spin tool until I found a better one (Brad's). Then I found an even better one for my particular needs (Homespun) and switched to that. I'm interested in building on other people's stuff, not duplicating stuff that already exists.
As for the Propeller 2 - well, I may indeed be misinformed - but I thought the chip was supposed to be previewed soon, and released within months. If you're going to tell me that they don't have the instruction set sorted yet (I'll accept that there are still some "tweaks" to be done) then I'm afraid someone is telling porkies. Just not sure who.
Ross.
As the prop 2 does not exist yet as a product all this getting your panties in a bunch about who has what info is absolutely fascinating.
But seriously some solid tools for the current prop is more germane.
Cheers.
We should not be grumpy that Chip does not want to release his x86 Spin compiler code. Especially when he will be approving a C/C++ reengineering of it as a "good workalike". The x86 code is not portable and the C code is far more accessible for enhancement by others as I'm sure will happen. Ultimately no implementation should be the definition of correctness of the implementation of a language anyway.
We should not be grumpy that there is a lack of info on Prop II. There is what there is. The chip is not out yet. In my experience it is not normal for processor vendors to generally release minute details of their designs prior to launch or even soon afterward. When I was at Northern Telecom we wanted to know why certain features of the i286 did not work as advertized. It took some months and an NDA before we got a document of may hundreds of pages describing all the bugs in that chip!!
All in all propeller land is looking very exciting just now from my perspective.
My thoughts exactly:)
You may be confusing "open source" with "open communications" - they are not the same thing. You should try putting yourselves in the position of any of the many people in these forums like BradC, mpark, Hanno, Prof Braino, Bean, myself - or any of the other developers who have spent years developing independent software tools for the Propeller. In many cases these tools (or at least aspects of them) have had to be painfully reverse engineered from the Prop v1 because of a lack of adequate information - even after Parallax released the source code to the Spin VM!
Are you assuming that all possible development needs wills be satisfied with GCC? Or are you just happy to wait five years before the Prop v2 has a reasonable set of alternative tools and languages available for it? Because that's how long it took on the Prop v1!
Ross.
In very short order, pretty much every tool related thing anyone has ever asked for will either be done, or possible without having to depend on "black box" components. This is a beautiful thing.
As for Prop II... I would much rather see it the quality of Prop I, than early, over spec'ed, etc...
Re: Left forums.
Well, maybe! It could be people are busy too. I sure am. Time will tell. Frankly, for those who did choose to leave, new developments may well have them return, or things like the Radio Shack sales channel may provide us newcomers. I do not see a cause for worry at this time.
Personally if I was developing tools it would be for either profit or altruistic reasons in either case the information is available or it is not.
GCC is a real itch for you for some reason.
As the prop 2 is not available at this time I think this is an academic discussion, anyway I assume that there will be company provided tools that will either be good or not although I assume that for the chip to be successful the company provided tools will up to the task as it appeasrs that Parallax is evolving in this area.
Cheers