Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Microchip buys Hi-Tech Software

D

David L. Jones

Jan 1, 1970
0
Phil Hobbs said:
When I used it last (about 2001) Microchip's C compiler was about as
bug-free as summer in Rimouski (or in Blue Bayou, for all the non-Canucks
out there). Switching to Hi-Tech saved my project, but the libraries were
different enough that that wasn't a trivial job.

Yes, the Microchip compilers are notoriously bad and inefficient.
Hi-Tech have always made excellent stable compilers that produce very tight
and fast code, even on the smallest PIC's.
I gather that Microchip is quietly deep-sixing its own compilers?

I hope so.
Although I also hope they don't remove the "free" versions. It's nice having
free (albeit performance crippled) C compilers that everyone can use.
At present (or last I looked) the free versions of Hi-Tech compilers only
supported a very restricted number of devices.

I can only presume that the Hi-Tech programmers will still be based in
Australia?

Dave.
 
F

Frank Buss

Jan 1, 1970
0
D

David L. Jones

Jan 1, 1970
0
Frank Buss said:
Do you have any reference, that Hi-Tech doesn't support competing
processors? It sounds like a natural consequence, but I didn't found it in
your links.

Yes, the letter in the link above says:

"In order to provide the best possible products for Microchip
microcontrollers and
digital signal controllers, we will focus our energies exclusively on
Microchip-
related products. Of course, support agreements for other products will be
honored for the duration of those agreements. "

Dave.
 
N

nospam

Jan 1, 1970
0
Frank Buss said:
Do you have any reference, that Hi-Tech doesn't support competing
processors?

Go to their web site and try to buy one....
--
 
W

WangoTango

Jan 1, 1970
0
I sure like the philosophy of the SPCC, but it sure didn't seem to take
off.

All of the available compilers for the PIC line drive me up the wall with
their non-ANSI-ness. I'm too pedantic, I guess.
Me too.
I have become a real believer in the preprocessor.
I like to hide as much of the strangeness as possible.
That and the use of int8, int16, and int32 and so on instead of char,
int, and long that might not have lengths you expect.
 
D

David L. Jones

Jan 1, 1970
0
Clifford Heath said:
If there are three after-market compilers available and a vendor
wanted to buy one of them which one would they buy? That's right,
they'd buy the crappiest one - it's the only one that will sell
out.

Hi-Tech just sold out, and they make really GOOD compilers.

I guess Microchip had plenty of money on hand after the Atmel deal fell
through, a drop of which could buy out Hi-Tech 10 times over, or perhaps
Hi-Tech weren't in the best of shape?, or perhaps the owners were tired and
just wanted to get out?
Anyone know what went down?

Dave.
 
C

Clifford Heath

Jan 1, 1970
0
David said:
Hi-Tech just sold out, and they make really GOOD compilers.

Yes, but that was the 2nd time around. 20/20 hindsight ;-)

It was mostly just Clyde, so I wouldn't be surprised if he got jack of it
and grabbed a sweet offer to retire.
 
N

Nico Coesel

Jan 1, 1970
0
David L. Jones said:
Hi-Tech just sold out, and they make really GOOD compilers.

I guess Microchip had plenty of money on hand after the Atmel deal fell
through, a drop of which could buy out Hi-Tech 10 times over, or perhaps
Hi-Tech weren't in the best of shape?, or perhaps the owners were tired and
just wanted to get out?
Anyone know what went down?

Good question. The traditional PIC is soon to be overtaken by the ARM
derivatives. The hobby scene worked very well for Microchip, but they
are quickly losing ground.

An excellent version of GCC is available for the PIC32 (MIPS based)
platform. So why bother buying a compiler manufacturor?
 
J

John Devereux

Jan 1, 1970
0
Joel Koltner said:
For some markets, sure... but in many commodity items like remote controls it
doesn't make sense to use a $1 32-bit ARM when a $0.10 8-bit PIC still works
just fine.


GCC for microcontrollers has never been as good as the best commercial
compilers in code size or performance...

Ah, but we are now in an era where the "microcontrollers" of today
have the cores of the 32 bit processors that GCC was written for.

I would certainly trust GCC on a 32 bit machine, over something
derived from, say, some line of "PIC compilers"!
 
D

Don McKenzie

Jan 1, 1970
0
David said:
http://www.embedded.com/215801676?cid=NL_embedded

and of course, Hi-Tech will no longer supply compilers for competing
processors:
http://www.htsoft.com/HI-TECH Customer Letter_Final.pdf

Dave.

Well, they are already looking for new staff in Australia:
http://www.seek.com.au/showjob.asp?jobid=15032025

I'll put my money on Clyde getting an offer he couldn't refuse. :)

You get to a certain age, where your get up and go, has gone and went.

Don...


--
Don McKenzie

Site Map: http://www.dontronics.com/sitemap
E-Mail Contact Page: http://www.dontronics.com/email
No More Damn Spam: http://www.wizard-of-oz.com

http://www.dontronics-shop.com/super4-usb-relay-module.html
 
N

Nico Coesel

Jan 1, 1970
0
Joel Koltner said:
For some markets, sure... but in many commodity items like remote controls it
doesn't make sense to use a $1 32-bit ARM when a $0.10 8-bit PIC still works
just fine.

Yes, but you'll need to sell quite a few units to make up for the
price difference between free GCC and a $$$ toolkit. For high volume
stuff, you're better off slapping an Asic together with some uC core
inside. The 8051 core is probably even cheaper (almost free).
GCC for microcontrollers has never been as good as the best commercial
compilers in code size or performance... and typically "customer support,"

GCC for ARM and MIPS platforms is pretty darn good. Most commercial
compilers will perform less. Just look at some independant
comparisons. The problem with compiler manufacturor's benchmarks is
that they usually compare their product with full optimisations on
against GCC with all optimisations off.

GCC also works fine with most 16 bit controllers (like the Renesas H8
and the TI MSP430 series). Its the oddball controllers like the 8051
and PIC that require a more specific approach towards converting C
into machine language.

Another advantage of using GCC is that you'll have one dialect and one
development environment (for example Eclipse) for all your platforms.
This makes changing to/porting to other/using multiple platforms a lot
easier since you don't have to invest time in learning new tools.
 
N

Nobody

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ah, but we are now in an era where the "microcontrollers" of today
have the cores of the 32 bit processors that GCC was written for.

Do you think that 8-bit uCs are about to disappear?
 
J

Jon Kirwan

Jan 1, 1970
0
For some markets, sure... but in many commodity items like remote controls it
doesn't make sense to use a $1 32-bit ARM when a $0.10 8-bit PIC still works
just fine.

Not to mention pinout. When they start packing 32-bitters into
SOT23-6 -- at similar pricing to 8-bit versions -- let me know. I'd
be interested. I'm getting them at about 25 cents each and I buy in
very small qtys.

Jon
 
J

John Devereux

Jan 1, 1970
0
Nobody said:
Do you think that 8-bit uCs are about to disappear?

No, but the sub-thread thread was about the PIC32, which (AIUI) is
based on a MIPS core. MIPS was designed for *high-end workstations* in
the 80's, wasn't it? Now it's in a "PIC"!

8 bit uCs *have* in fact all but disappeared from my own designs,
where I can easily justify the (very low) hardware cost overhead. I
have not had to do ultra-low power or ultra-high-volume as yet.
 
J

Jasen Betts

Jan 1, 1970
0
Good question. The traditional PIC is soon to be overtaken by the ARM
derivatives. The hobby scene worked very well for Microchip, but they
are quickly losing ground.

An excellent version of GCC is available for the PIC32 (MIPS based)
platform. So why bother buying a compiler manufacturor?

perhaps they want to make a decent C compiler C freely avaialble for PIC.

that could potentially sell more parts...
 
J

Jasen Betts

Jan 1, 1970
0
No, but the sub-thread thread was about the PIC32, which (AIUI) is
based on a MIPS core. MIPS was designed for *high-end workstations* in
the 80's, wasn't it? Now it's in a "PIC"!

M68K was used in small un*x servers.

ARM started out on the desktop too.
 
J

John Devereux

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jasen Betts said:
M68K was used in small un*x servers.

ARM started out on the desktop too.

Yes, all good GCC targets, and all now mostly used as microcontroller
or embedded microprocessor cores.
 
J

Jon Kirwan

Jan 1, 1970
0
So, you're using '2 bit' processors?

Hehe. I wonder how many younger folks will understand. Which reminds
me that I'm getting too old, that I even know what you mena.

Jon
 
Top