Re: Moving from 8051 to AVR

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:09:46 +0100, "Ulf Samuelsson"
<ulf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This simply is not true. The most significant commercial driver in
electronics today is unit cost and that is directly related to Bill of
Materials and hence microcontroller cost.

Disagree, the most significant driver is Time To Market.

But I will agree that time to market is an important factor in almost
every case. I just don't agree with it necessarily being the "most
significant driver" in each and every case. It is here that you reach
too far with your statement.

People have schedules for products, and they generally do not want them to
slip, to get lower cost products.

No argument.

I did not say that this is true in every case, did I?
Has nothing to do with C or assembler...

It seemed to me that you said "most significant driver" in disagreeing
with Ian about unit cost, when the facts are that there are a number
of constraints operating on any product and time to market is just one
important one. I think it remains less extreme and more balanced to
holds all important constraints in mind, including having the right
product for market.

If cost was the main driver, then people would take time to do optimized
custom chips.

You mean, actually, if time weren't important at all. But that is
arguing from an extreme. Of course, time is important. No one is
arguing differently. So I hope no one finds this argument from an
extreme as persuasive about the realities of using assembly or C or
whatever else.

No, the way to have optimize cost is to optimize on all levels.

Which is what I'm saying. Glad to see you agree.

If a customer has a choice between meeting a schedule or reduce cost
then if the customer chooses to meet the schedule,

I don't know why you'd argue this. Do you make end-user products for
sale? There are several cases I can cite personal experience on,
where I was told that the cost target, if not met, would simply mean
there was no point in offering it at all.

You continue to appear to have only one perspective. I don't disagree
that it is reasonable in various cases. Just that there are many
other reasonable ones which you seem to discount.

I think it is fair to say that time is more important than cost.

And I still don't find your argument persuasive.

I don't imagine things nearly as simple, black and white, as you seem to,
Ulf.

My actual experience with these exact problems goes back
decades, as I am still to this very day supporting products using the
Lattice C compiler, old Intel tools,

And an alternative is to use another C compiler for the 8088.

Not so, Ulf. The very fact that you'd even consider suggesting this
out of ignorance of the details (which I have and you do not), means
to me that you continue to be very willing to risk telling others how
they might better do things without knowing why you say so.

Here is the fuller context of my statement, which you snipped:

: I don't imagine things nearly as simple, black and white, as you seem
: to, Ulf. My actual experience with these exact problems goes back
: decades, as I am still to this very day supporting products using the
: Lattice C compiler, old Intel tools, special customized software to
: handle the unique OBJ formats of both, etc., all for cross-development
: to an 8088 processor that is in a custom configuration totally unlike
: a PC. There is no Lattice, anymore. They are gone. And this is only
: one of many such examples. I also have had to deal with cases where
: the old tools are no longer even _known_ about by the current support
: staff and there is almost nothing they can even do, despite wanting to
: help. And there are other different circumstances.
:
: Some foresight about these possibilities can help make a better choice
: about which approach to take and how to hedge against future problems.
: How that plays out, of course, depends on the circumstances and the
: vendors and a lot of other factors.

Even from this tiny amount that I wrote, if you had had experience of
a more general nature but good embedded experience all the same with
various PC compilers, you'd have known that in a custom, non-PC system
there would _have_ to be custom assembly code, as well. Even knowing
nothing at all about the product I was talking about, it should be
amply clear from what I wrote that this would need to be the case. If
nothing else, in the crt0.asm code that was used. But in any real,
practical system, probably more than that.

This is, of course, how things actually exist for this product. A
mixed system of assembly and C. In the Lattice C compiler, it does
not pass variables the same way as in the Microsoft compiler or the
Borland C compiler or the Paradigm C (a derivative product, itself)
or, in fact, any other C compiler I know of right now. It isn't the
case that they just did things 'to be different,' just that there
wasn't a de facto standard, yet, and they decided to do things in
their own way.

In addition, I took the time to inform you that it combined "old Intel
tools, special customized software to handle the unique OBJ formats of
both." This should also tell you that there are some custom things
going on. If you had been reading with understanding, you'd then very
probably be able to judge reasonably that "an alternative is to use
another C compiler for the 8088" isn't a viable alternative unless
there are _other_ reasons for changing that just "to change, because
the company is gone."

Frankly, only with what I'd already written, I cannot see a reasonable
way to understand how you could make such a comment. That is, if you
had honestly had any practical experience with real clients and real
client motivations, in this regard. But I really wish you could have
been present at several meetings about this product, so I could have
watched you suggest it there. ;)

Jon
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 8051 C Compiler
    ... various costs of piracy rather than a superior product. ... When I hear claims that an estimated 10% of sales are lost through illegal copying, I understand that it is a big dent in the developing company's income. ... The one developer that paid for the compiler now needs ... The cost of supported tools was about .04% (A real number ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: C90 penetration
    ... to stick his neck out asking for a C compiler. ... could use the cost savings from that to increase our mail ... English teacher as a break from programming, ... People used to have to fight over TAPE ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: This is not the robocar I wanted!
    ... but it still has a cost. ... the compiler can emit very good code if it ... can only understand some looping construct or other and substute ... program a bit longer would have saved months of programmer time. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: C popularity
    ... but, then one can ask, what is 'cost' by these templates?... ... I make use of autoheader tools, and some amount of automated code processing ... I wrote a compiler framework; ... I generate custom machine code and mutilate/relink parts of the process ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Capturing Revenue
    ... In the Resource Sheet double-click each resource. ... Set rate B to the internal cost. ... to create a custom Revenue ...
    (microsoft.public.project)