----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Dattalo <scott@dattalo.com>
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <piclist@mit.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: [PIC] XCASM (was Re: CC5X errors - help)


> Sergio Masci wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > As a mater of interest how well has the PIC port of the SDCC compiler come
along
> > in the last 2 years? Apart from Scott's work on this I don't see anybody
else
> > contributing to it. Whereas version 2 of the XCSB compiler has come a long
way
> > since it was started at the end of last year. Does open source really mean
> > better development tools for the PIC?
>
> Sergio,
>
> I agree with the premise behind your statement but would like to correct
>   the facts. The fact is that I've done hardly anything with SDCC for
> the last two years, but there have been at least two other very active
> contributors to the SDCC port (and in particular to the 16bit processor
> support). Now this fact ties into your premise; my motivation for
> contributing to an open source project has less to do with satisfying
> the needs of others and more about satisfying my own. Whereas your work
> on XCSB and XCASM must address the needs of others else you'll not be
> able to eat next week. And if we both do our job equally well, in the
> end you'll have a tool others can use whereas I'll have a tool that I
> can use. To the degree that my uses coincide with those of others, our
> tools will satisfy similar goals.
>
> Scott

Hi Scott,

I think I should make it clear that at no point was I criticising you, your work
or your decision to publish your work as opensource. I am VERY sorry if I have
given you this impression as I actually think highly of you.

What I was trying to highlight is that although many people complain about
non-opensource software (that it cannot be maintained by the user) that there is
a great deal of opensource software which is not maintained by its users. I was
trying to say that if it were not for Scott (and maybe one or two others which I
admit I was not aware of) the PIC port of SDCC would have died. Users are not
queing up to fix bugs in it. The argument that software must be maintainable by
its user is completely contradicted by the unwillingness of MOST users to fix
buggy software even when given the opportunity.

Regards
Sergio Masci

http://www.xcprod.com/titan/XCSB - optimising PIC compiler
FREE for personal non-commercial use





-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist