Comments on: My attitude to Carbide http://www.macrobug.com/blog/2006/12/12/my-attitude-to-carbide/ Macrobug Blog Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:17:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Markus Ahonen http://www.macrobug.com/blog/2006/12/12/my-attitude-to-carbide/#comment-48 Markus Ahonen Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:54:24 +0000 http://www.macrobug.com/blog/2006/12/12/my-attitude-to-carbide/#comment-48 Yes, Adrian, I "still" read your blog :-) I've just been buried in day-long meetings with our internal tools teams and Symbian, trying to figure out where we need to provide tools support in 2008 and 2009... To answer to your question: I too think that Carbide.c++ is great, and it improves upon CodeWarrior. I've just completed a satisfaction study of about 500 developers using CW, Visual Studio, and Carbide.c++, and the results are pretty clear about Carbide.c++ being a clear improvement over CodeWarrior. So I'd agree we're doing better than with CodeWarrior. I'm biased, of course, since it's my product. At the same time, my primary job is to figure out what customers want. Currently, there are 2 things: 1) A build system that imports and builds quickly, with support for all kinds of MMP keywords, and with a 110% compatibility with command line builds 2) stop-mode debugging of reference boards 3) faster debugger performance, and less emulator performance -related problems 4) easier on-device debug setup 5) bug fixes in general Our plan is to address 1 and 2 (and some of 3) with Carbide.c++ 1.2, scheduled for release by end of April 2006 (give or take a few weeks); and to address 3-5 with 1.3, to be released toward the end of the year. Keep in mind that 1.x will be free upgrades for you, so you'll get these automatically. I'm anticipating that 1.2 will improve our customer satisfaction figures even further. With 1.3, I think we'll have this issue nailed and buried, and we can then start thinking about adding a significant number of new features. I'll post a notification of our 1.2 beta in a week or so. I'm hoping you (and anyone reading) can participate! Cheers, Markus Ahonen Product Manager, Carbide.c++ Yes, Adrian, I “still” read your blog :-) I’ve just been buried in day-long meetings with our internal tools teams and Symbian, trying to figure out where we need to provide tools support in 2008 and 2009…

To answer to your question: I too think that Carbide.c++ is great, and it improves upon CodeWarrior. I’ve just completed a satisfaction study of about 500 developers using CW, Visual Studio, and Carbide.c++, and the results are pretty clear about Carbide.c++ being a clear improvement over CodeWarrior.

So I’d agree we’re doing better than with CodeWarrior. I’m biased, of course, since it’s my product. At the same time, my primary job is to figure out what customers want. Currently, there are 2 things:

1) A build system that imports and builds quickly, with support for all kinds of MMP keywords, and with a 110% compatibility with command line builds
2) stop-mode debugging of reference boards
3) faster debugger performance, and less emulator performance -related problems
4) easier on-device debug setup
5) bug fixes in general

Our plan is to address 1 and 2 (and some of 3) with Carbide.c++ 1.2, scheduled for release by end of April 2006 (give or take a few weeks); and to address 3-5 with 1.3, to be released toward the end of the year. Keep in mind that 1.x will be free upgrades for you, so you’ll get these automatically.

I’m anticipating that 1.2 will improve our customer satisfaction figures even further. With 1.3, I think we’ll have this issue nailed and buried, and we can then start thinking about adding a significant number of new features.

I’ll post a notification of our 1.2 beta in a week or so. I’m hoping you (and anyone reading) can participate!

Cheers,

Markus Ahonen
Product Manager, Carbide.c++

]]>