On 15/06/17 16:45, Karoly Balogh (Charlie/SGR) wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
At the risk of making myself unpopular: because right now I /don't/ have> time.
Sorry, I didn't mean this personal to you. I was just a bit triggered onthe fact that
people offer competing products on FPC status requests,because I've seen it more than
once that people just ask for the Status ofX, regarding FPC, and when it's not there
right now, they just move on tosomething else. And we have to "compete" with a
whole range of commercialproducts, where this attitude doesn't help.
I agree for what it's worth, and I also find it very frustrating when-
in a mailing list specifically for FPC or Lazarus- somebody asks a
question about the standard development environment or a standard
component and gets the answer that the best way to do it is to use
somebody else's pet project.
Especially with a project as young and specialized as FPC's AVR backend.>> "Young and
specialised"... exactly. Which is why I was interested in any> light that people currently working
on AVR could throw on it, since> what's in the Wiki is roughly 9 months old (apart from
recently-added> links etc.) and that's a long time for something which people are> actively working
on.
You are right, of course.
I'm only using Arduinos at the moment (potentially including e.g.
Teensy), and until I'm far more knowledgeable about remote debugging
etc. am inclined to keep it that way :-)
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
