Anyone using Linux?

Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@highlandtechnology.invalid> writes:

> On 03/24/2017 07:19 PM, Randy Yates wrote:
>> Eric <Eric@spamspamorspam.com> writes:
>>
>>> Just curious about how much Linux is being used for embedded DSP apps.
>>> If you're using it, what are your normal development tools?
>>
>> Eric,
>>
>> Lately I've been doing non-DSP things like equipment control libraries
>> (has anyone heard of BACnet?) lately using linux for both the
>> development as well as the final target.
>>
>> Folks will probably shake their heads, but my normal development tools
>> are emacs, gdb, and gnumake. I don't even have a JTAG or IDE, other than
>> gdb running inside emacs. Since the target OS is linux and has a network
>> interface, I have been able to use gdbserver and gdb to debug on the
>> target when necessary. Most of the time, due to the availability of
>> compatible hardware on my desktop system, I build and test on my desktop
>> linux, then only retarget the embedded linux for the final "does it
>> still work" step.
>
> That's just stupid.  Why would you want to use time-tested tools that
> have been generally stable for well over a decade when there's a
> perennial stream of latest and greatest tools that you can invest time
> and energy into learning only to find the project stalled with
> hundreds of logged bugs and no workarounds?

Rob, Rob, Rob...,

I've always loved biting irony. As Bartles and Jaymes used to say,
"Thank you for support!"
-- 
Randy Yates, DSP/Embedded Firmware Developer
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) writes:

> Rob Gaddi  <rgaddi@highlandtechnology.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 03/24/2017 07:19 PM, Randy Yates wrote:
>
>>> Eric <Eric@spamspamorspam.com> writes:
>>> Folks will probably shake their heads, but my normal development tools
>>> are emacs, gdb, and gnumake. I don't even have a JTAG or IDE, other than
>>> gdb running inside emacs. Since the target OS is linux and has a network
>>> interface, I have been able to use gdbserver and gdb to debug on the
>>> target when necessary. Most of the time, due to the availability of
>>> compatible hardware on my desktop system, I build and test on my desktop
>>> linux, then only retarget the embedded linux for the final "does it
>>> still work" step.
>
>>That's just stupid.  Why would you want to use time-tested tools that 
>>have been generally stable for well over a decade when there's a 
>>perennial stream of latest and greatest tools that you can invest time 
>>and energy into learning only to find the project stalled with hundreds 
>>of logged bugs and no workarounds?
>
> Right. 
>
> I've never been drawn towards using an IDE for the C, C++ and Verilog
> projects I've worked on.  The text based and command line tools
> are very capable and reliable.
>
> Similarly I somewhat dislike (and have lower productivity) using Simulink 
> instead of or in addition to Matlab, but that's a trickier trade-off.  
>
> Steve

It seems there is a sort of "law of physics" that productivity is
proportional to the complexity of/time to learn the tools.
-- 
Randy Yates, DSP/Embedded Firmware Developer
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com