On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 09:18:43 -0400, you wrote:

>Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>>> Exactly, which is why Microchip should stay out of the editor
>>> business. Provide hooks so it can run your editor of choice instead.
>>
>> You mentions "editor business". Indeed you can use whatever
>> editor you want. But the IDE is more than an editor. Even you
>> yourself have to use MPLAB IDE for your debugging, to use
>> your ICE 2000 or whatever debugger you have.
>
>Right, but MPLAB includes a editor.  That's what I meant about Microchip
>being in the editor business.  We will never know what better things they
>could have given us if they hadn't wasted time on a editor private to MPLA=
B.
>
>Microchip needs to do the stuff that is special to PICs.  The more stuff
>they do beyond that the more they are just reinventing the wheel.

Any IDE must have a useable  editor included, as it needs to be  able to ru=
n 'out of the box'
without having to mess with working with every random editor out there.=20
Some people are less fussy about editors than others - as long as you can r=
econfigure the key
mappings to match what you are used to, the level of editor functionality i=
ncluded in MPLAB is just
fine for the majority of users.
Sure, provide the hooks to talk to other editors, but a useable one really =
does need to be included.

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.