> Now you say the best one can do is to take a printout of the 
> map file and enter the raw memory addresses manually when you 
> want to send something to the device? I'm almost certain that 
> you would do better.

No, I said the operator has to specify *something*. A name is an
instance of something. If the default ground operator interface used hex
addresses instead of names I would consider that an error, but probably
a design error or more probably a specification error, not a software
error. And note: that's ground software, not on-board software.

> I would never (well, I think... "never say never" :) 
> deliver a device to a user (and may it be a space device 
> operator) that requires entering raw addresses for changing 
> parameters. 

For the space stuff I worked for such an interface was mandatory (a
name-based interface was build on top of it, but the address-based
interface was required to be available). So if you would not deliver it,
your software would not fly (or rather: you would not be on the project
at all).

> Such a space device should have the budget for a 
> decent software for parameter upload -- in the end, as can be 
> seen, it's cheaper to have it than not :)

That seems plausible, but did you realy try to do the math? Compare the
extra cost (to make it conform to whatever you see fit) for *all*
spacecraft, including the ones that never get launched, and then compare
it to the cost you save (you still won't catch all errrors!). I am not
saying you are not right, but I would not be convinced either way before
someone put the calculation in front of me.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 
 


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