On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:21 AM, Olin Lathrop wrote: > AK wrote: >> The naming 'X' and the move to java really has me worried that this >> decision was not made by nor will be directed by the engineering >> department. > > I don't think so. =A0I believe "X" came from not originally knowing the > version number the rewritten MPLAB would have. =A0I think it's now been > decided to be version 10(?). > > As for the engineering bit, it seems to me that the engineers are general= ly > for it, and I'm confident that the decision was made by competent people > like Joe and Derek, even if I don't agree with it. =A0I think there were = two > primary motivations: to support other platforms and that the existing cod= e > was getting difficult to maintain. =A0I'm sure of the first, not so much = about > the second. > >From what I hear, I think the second is also an important reason (for example, the COM architecture where the glue logic between the plugins and MPLAB is very difficult to be used). And I think these two reasons alone are very good to move away from the current MPLAB code base. As for choosing Netbean over Eclipse, that is another story. Microchip seems to like to support the No 2 (eg: Netbean for MPLAB X and MIPS M4k core for PIC32) and not the No 1 (Eclipse and ARM Cortex M3 Core for PIC32 ). In terms of PIC32, I am sure they make a mistake. In terms of Netbean versus Eclipse, I am not sure. Of the two, Eclipse is of course much more popular. --=20 Xiaofan --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .