I need help to decide which environment to use: WinAvr or AtmanAvr (money no problem).
Please your suggestions!
We'd need to know your list of selection criteria.
After looking the the AtmanAvr webpage for 30s it looks like:
- Both use the gcc compiler
- AtmanAVR ships with its own IDE, featuring 'Wizards' for code generation
(This can be curse and a blessing: You get some code fast without much knowledge, but you will not really know how the code works and will need to learn after the project is well underway)
- You'll get help for the WinAvr/AVRStudio here at avrfreaks, I don't know about AtmanAVR
If money is no issue, did you look at the commercial C compilers ?
You: "...which environment to use: WinAvr or AtmanAvr?
I'm using both. On the same sources.
Why? Cause my customer wants to get the sources compiled with Atmel studio and WinAVR, and I want to be efficient.
Markus listed the drawbacks, I agree with him.
A wizard is fine for
a) the first experiences of success
c) "instant prototyping", if your are experienced enough to do without it,
But if should get seduced to omit b), the experience of setting the bits with your brain instead of the seductive wizart, you'll get lost, if the results are not as expected.
Wang, the developer of the IDE named AtmanAVR did a quite good job. His IDE and his "wizzard" allow "instant prototyping" and I enjoy some helpful features, I miss in Atmel studio.
Within the next releases the figure may change.
The price of a AtmanAVR? Negligable in comparison the money, I won due to the higher effiency of programming.
>>> Within the next releases the figure may change.
Next release of what?
I have thought of commercial release C compiler CodeVision. CodeVision also have powerfully wizard, but as you said that can be good and bad. But at the end, what will I get much better than GCC?
Please steer clear of the 'compiler wars' flaming up here once in a while !
There is no generic answer to your question !
While gcc is a fine compiler, gcc can compile for almost all CPU architectures on earth. Because of this it can not take all AVR idiosyncrasies fully in account. Compilers written specifically for microcontrollers can have an edge over gcc in some aspects. If this would not be so then all commercial compiler vendors would be out of business.
The only way to know if you are better served with another compiler than gcc is to take your application and compile it with the other compiler and see if you gain something.
Just to emphasize again: There is no 'universally best compiler'. There might be a best compiler for *a specific application*.
One more word: You'll spend considerable time learning about your compiler and how it serves you best. You'll have to learn many flags, and how they affect the compilation. Depending on your project you'll find one choice works better here and another choice works better for the next project. There will be considerable investment of your time to get to know your compiler and environment.
In my opinion I would prefer winAVR over any other compiler, even compilers I have never used, seen, or even heard of. thanks.
If you want me to go into detail why, It may take a few days to finish the post!
Do you use AtmanAVR?
I just love winAVR! to tell you the truth, I suggest winAVR to everyone I talk to who wants to start on AVR's, am I breaking a rule or something?
but the main thing that got me about atman was when I first saw there site, it says:
Since AtmanAvr is IDE using GCC compiler, it is not a compiler itself. The background tools and some of sample routines came from the following websites. You can visit them for more information.
and it has libc, gcc, winAVR, and even Joerg Wunsch's website... it seems to me, that atmanAVR is nothing more then an expensive winAVR (its not free :P). of course with no experience using atmanAVR I may be wrong, never said I wasn't.
Also, correct me if im wrong, but isent atman just basically the GUI? by that I mean isent atman just winAVR with a different application then PN2? I just *thought this from looking threw there site. if it is why not save your self the cash, and just use PN2 or avrstudio...
but like I said before, its just my opinion, of course you are entitled to your own, so don't take shots at me just because I suggested winAVR.
Thats all I really have to say about it, cliff.
Yes please - I'd like to know why you prefer WinAVR to AtmanAVR? (putting cost aside)
its just my opinion
The Board helps those that help themselves.
my opinion based on just looking at there site, nothing more, does it have to be? nah.
geeze you guys, the guy asked 'Please your suggestions!' Im just suggesting winAVR... thats all!
so how could you possibly know that it is "an overpriced after market version"?
You are right about that though, you right as in I should not have just claimed it to be an overpriced after market for never *really* using it... So I will take that down, but other then that, why do I have to get bashed when ever I make my opinion? wrong or right, its just an opinion. I don't charge on other people for saying something I disagree with.
Instead of just making a post to flame me out, why not explain why you disagree with me? then I don't get offended and the OP gets more information, seems the better thing todo. that is also my opinion.
Other than the fact that it is an integrated working environment, they update the various parts of the compiler and libraries fairly regularly. In other words, you get the latest features way before WINAVR updates appear. To some, that in itself would be worth the money.
The comparison of WinAVR vs AtmanAVR is basically a question (if you discount the Studio GCC plugin) of Programmers Notepad as an IDE versus the Atman IDE offering. Clearly there is no equivalent of a CodeWizard in the WinAVR package so that mihgt be considered reason enough to select Atman (a lot of people choose Codevision as an IDE/compiler package on the basis of their offering of a similar thing alone). Roboteers for example are often more interested in the mechanics than the programming and just want something that works with as little fuss as possible.
© 2020 Microchip Technology Inc.