> In comp.dsp Adrian Hey wrote:
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > I see the VCSE ("VisualDSP++ Component Software
Engineering") stuff
> > seems to have been dropped altogether from version 4.0. It seems
> > a bit strange to have gone to such lengths to define this standard
> > and write software to support it and then just abandon it.
> > Does anybody know why?
> >
> > Since ADI offer no explanation of this decision in their release
> > notes I can only presume it has been ditched because it sucked :-)
> > Or maybe so few people used it they decided it wasn't worth
the
> > effort. But never having used it myself I can't say for sure.
> > Anybody got any better info? Is VCSE really dead, or might it
> > reappear again?
> >
> > My real reason for asking is that is seemed (at first glance at
> > least) to address a real problem and it would be better to adopt
> > the same solution as other ADI users rather than attempt a
"roll
> > your own" solution. But if it's dead I guess roll your own
might
> > be the best (the only?) option.
>
> Hi Adrian,
>
> your post made me read the VCSE manual supplied with my installation
> of VisualDSP++ v3.5 for the first time. Indeed, it seems like a very
> useful software development feature, especially if one intends to
> develop software in a heterogeneous environment (including different
> companies).
>
> It could be a suitable model for an upcoming DSP operating system
> that I am writing. Is support for VCSE really discontinued for
> VisualDSP++ V4.0? Has anybody developed components with VCSE or is
> using it at the moment?
>
> (I am crossposting this to the ADSP e-mail group.)
>
> Regards,
> Andor
>
Hi.
Without thinking too much along the VCSE philosophy, here's my guess.
There are some high level tools which tend to integrate automatic code
generation for more and more processors, FPGA devices, etc.
Was it from Mathworks (Matlab), where I found a hint, that such
code generation for ADI's DSPs is in progress? At least, it's time for
it.
Now, if such efforts are taken, this will certainly require a
ruleset/component/environment, which is alike, but different from VCSE.
It would be wise to drop the other one (VCSE), before the new one shines up.
Wait a while. I'm quite sure that we'll understand soon.
Besides, I, too, didn't read the VCSE manual up to now...!
There's good chance, that (almost) nobody will miss VCSE.
Bernhard
