> All the responses to my original criticisms state that there are
workarounds
> to the problems that are presented by PICloader. But none of those issues
> exists with Wloader, therefore no workarounds are necessary. Because of
that
> it is my opinion that in terms of bootloaders that Wloader is superior to
> PICLoader.

I guess I am allowed to say that it has its weeknesses too:
- it uses quite a lot of code (2K)
- the bit-banged UART must work at a lower speed than the HW UART could

I do only (hobby) development work, no production or in-field updates, so
WLoader was made with that situation in mind: I want to hack away at my PC
and be able to compile, download, start and see the debug output without
having to leave my keyboard. (And I do not want do make modifications to
what my compiler produces, even tough it is my own compiler.) It does not
come as a surprise that WLoader appeals most to those who are in the same
situation. Other situations might warrant another choice (for instance with
mainly infield udates: you must swap cables anyway so use the UART, and ROM
footprint might be more inportant).

What I often miss in discussions like this (not blaming anyone in
particular!) is the recognition that different people work under different
circumstances, so what is optimal for one person and his situation is often
sub-optimal for another!

Wouter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body