SimpleIDE's "spin-y-ness"
ratronic
Posts: 1,451
I have been looking at a thread in the "Prop GCC Beta" forum and apparently the comment I am going to make would be better put here. My comment is to Parallax and to anybody involved with "SimpleIDE". Even though I am just a hobbiest and haven't purchased a quantity of Propeller chips, I completely understand the need to include C/C++ and I can kind of understand why it was not included with the Propeller 1 to begin with though it should have been from a business standpoint.
As the Propeller is a unique chip and you are offering it thru RadioShack I would hope you would consider the ease of use of Spin/Pasm to new user's and old user's alike. I have used C/C++ but what drew me to the Propeller is Spin/Pasm current ease of use.
I hope as you develop Simple IDE you can keep it as easy to use as the Propeller tool is now.
As the Propeller is a unique chip and you are offering it thru RadioShack I would hope you would consider the ease of use of Spin/Pasm to new user's and old user's alike. I have used C/C++ but what drew me to the Propeller is Spin/Pasm current ease of use.
I hope as you develop Simple IDE you can keep it as easy to use as the Propeller tool is now.
Comments
I'm still not convinced that C is a winner on the Prop due to its architecture and memory constraints. The Prop 2 is a whole other story though.
I'm sure there are even some C adherents who would agree that it's more of a necessary evil on the Prop I than anything else. From a marketing standpoint, if it creates an entry ramp for those who already program in C, then it's a Good ThingTM.
-Phil
I think there is some famous quote to the effect that we are not amazed at how well a dog can walk on its hind legs rather than it can do it at all.
That is my view of C on the Prop 1.
I can understand the need to include C from all kind's of standpoint's, I just do not want to see Chip's wonderfull language harder to use in the process of including C.
Where did you stop? What did you do before you got there?
Was there a com port in the combo box?
This goes back to the Project/No-Project debate.
Along the tool bar is a "gear" icon. If you select the tab for your .spin top program and hit the gear icon, it will make that file and any included OBJ files the current project. From there you can compile/load the Spin program.
SimpleIDE is project oriented. Click the COG button to set the project to the file being shown. Once a project is set it can be easily changed from the project history. This is all described in the user-guide.
The reason it is project oriented (today) is because of all those times where i was working with SPIN and accidently loaded the file that I was editing instead of the "top" file. Spin is very promiscuous in that respect, and caused me great grief; I am not alone in that regard and was also asked to change it.
I'll probably add an option to allow such promiscuous behavior at some point too - it is however intrusive and will require much more work and testing. Then someone will find something else to complain about, and I'll be in exactly the same position I am now. I've already suggested to Ken and Chip to remove the previously requested and added SPIN features, but was told to persevere.
This is good to know. Something i missed.
Regarding library path not found, please check the Properties -> Spin -> Library path. It should look something like the attachment at startup. You need to set your own workspace which is only used for new projects.
There is a more up-to-date spin SimpleIDE.exe version for windows that fixes some things, but it has to be dropped into an existing installation. It's a debug version, so it's bigger than necessary. I'll try to find the post for that.
For my 0.8.1 install on Win7
Spin Compiler -> c:/propgcc/bin.bstc
Library Folder -> c:/propgcc/spin
Workspace Folder c:/users/rp1537/Documents/SimpleIDE
You may want to grab 0.8.1 just to make sure you are playing with the latest.
Regarding Projects (I'm neither a fan or non-fan of projects). Yesterday, I had Tachyon, PropForth, Jeff's Tweet Reader and a couple little Spin test snippets open in SimpleIDE and was bouncing back and forth loading them and playing - the only thing I did to change projects was select the main program and hit the COG and I was ready to compile/load that program.
Steve, please don't be discouraged by the requests/insistence/criticism your effort receives. Those are mere wavelets lapping at your shore. Behind that is a tide of admiration for all that you've accomplished so far. And I think our ultimate objectives are the same: i.e. to make the Spin IDE as brain-dead simple and productive to use as possible. I do believe, however, that every extra keystroke or mouse-click is a tiny roadblock in that journey and that we need to find ways of eliminating them.
-Phil
-> Start SimpleIDE
-> Select Spin Compiler
-> Start typing text in the text editor window
-> Select Save to save the file
-> Select the Cog icon (Set project) if you want to compile and run
For what you are doing:
-> Open
-> Select the Cog icon (Set Project), at this point it is a project.
And you are ready to go. The one thing that you have to do is double check the Com port Selection to make sure the right com port is selected for the board that you are using.
The first time through is sort of a hassle, just like the first time that I used the Propeller Tool.
Ray
I also like the Prop Tool's automatic com port search. These are all convenience features that help to shorten the design/edit cycle, and that's important.
-Phil
I like SimpleIDEs ability to support multiple Prop connections from a single IDE. You can drop code into any of the attached Props just by selecting it from the drop down. Of course having to pick between cu.usbserial-A1VI356D or A60070kc isn't the easiest thing to remember!
Ray
It would be nice if it was that easy. Propeller II will require an updated Propeller Tool. If you just add Propeller II support to SimpleIDE, then you alienate a large and talented group of Spin programmers and force them to embrace SimpleIDE in order to program the P2 in Spin. Not something anybody wants to do. If you go forward with an updated Propeller Tool and SimpleIDE, you open up the Open Source, single platform issues that existed prior to SimpleIDE and alienate a bunch of potential new users and also open up multiple paths of product support for a small company.
Either way, the choices aren't good.
I think the original plan was to have Eclipse as an IDE to program in C/C++, then SimpleIDE came along to make it easy for beginners to get involved with C/C++. I think that if it takes, getting rid of Spin, to settle the waters, then Spin be gone from SimpleIDE.
I just hope we do not have the same problem when Eclipse finally shows up. Some of the professional users just might request that Spin should be available within Eclipse, I hope Spin bolts on easier in Eclipse then it does in SimpleIDE. And while were at it, how about RUBY for the Propeller?
LETS GET RID OF SPIN FROM SIMPLEIDE!
Ray
-Phil
I think you are absolutely right. I am starting to believe that C is a very poor fit for the Propeller, now the Propeller II is/will be different. So, what is the answer, maybe just to hang back, wait for Eclipse for the Propeller to show up, and in the mean time just keep using the Propeller Tool. After all the Propeller Tool will have to be around to support the Propeller II chip. I think, with the latest upgrade, the Propeller Tool is/has everything a programmer would want from an IDE. Spin, even with some inconveniences, is the best fit for the Propeller. Now I am back to happy land.
Ray
The Prop I needs C, good fit or not, to attract volume customers. They also absolutely have to jettison the Prop Tool, since it is closed-source and cannot be made otherwise. So far, SimpleIDE is the primo candidate to address both issues, and Steve should definitely continue to develop it. Your calls for abandoning it are ill-founded, IMO.
I once did a consulting job for a company who had selected the SX. The reason they picked it, in addition to blistering speed (at the time) was because there was a C compiler for it. Talk about a bad fit! My job was to do the low-level driver stuff in SX ASM, and they would do the high-level stuff in C. Well, I ended up doing it all in assembly anyway. The moral is that C was necessary to snag the customer, but assembly got the job done. I see the same thing happening with the Propeller, once C has been ported successfully.
-Phil