On Feb 6, 2012, at 9:56 AM, doug metzler wrote:

> looks like they've forked the IDE and are running 023, whilst
> the rest of us have moved on to 1.0.  So now they are forever playing
> catch-up.  Might it be better for them to develop a script that adds
> the necessary files and hooks to an existing IDE installation rather
> than forking the entire install...

Actually, the world is a bit divided on the 1.0 idea.  There is a significa=
nt population of "it's not backward with my old, random, unsupported, weird=
, library that I'm totally dependent on, so I'm staying with 0023!

Also, the Arduino development team has said that they WILL be using the mul=
ti-architecture model developed by the ChipKit folks in the version of the =
IDE that supports their ARM-based boards (should it ever show up for real, =
I guess.)  So there is stuff that needs to go both ways, and it looks like =
it is.

I don't think a script/patch-based distribution of the chipKit IDE is pract=
ical.  There were too many core changes needed to move things from single-a=
rchitecture to multi-architecture support.


> I also hope they are actively developing code samples for the
> functionality that is unique to this board (CAN,  etc.) and somehow
> integrating those samples into the main Arduino wiki.

Alas, the Arduino community doesn't seem terribly interested.  Arduino is n=
ot such a great thing for chip vendors, since one of its "features" is that=
 it hides the details of one chip's "features" from the users...

What it is really nice for, is to have a set of "known mostly working" core=
 software that you can put "around" the code that you're actually working o=
n.  If you want to write CAN support, you don't need to struggle with figur=
ing out how to write debug messages to the async uart...

BillW

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