Have they said they are going to be closed source? I haven’t seen them say it, it was more a warning to if they decided to be… the first part was in jest since I WANT to play with it (especially since all of my current devices are G120/400 based) and don’t keep us hanging!
Edit: and I always have to keep in mind that I have just finished the concept development stage for a massive IoT project and a critical decision on the final programming language for our embedded hardware is becoming more and more critical…
Hmmm… Maybe that’s a good question. Since they made the move to be fully closed source prior to the TinyCLR announcement, I just assumed that would continue. Maybe they’ll surprise us but I’m not going to hold my breath.
Well, from my point of view, the value (given that I have just spent a week on an ITIL course (yawn) ) for GHI was that they provided extra features(mainly remote (and reliable) firmware/bootloader and lots of I/O) on an open source platform (so not very locked in) and support in a SOM package (although the G400 clock drift / lack of a unique ID drives me crazy some times). Plus the fact that the gadgeteer package was so easy to prototype… We shall just have to wait and see (until next week?!)… Maybe I should just post crap to build my experience so I can come an insider :whistle:
Yes, I love VS but it is not a show stopper, I have to way up the following for which all are a major concern for any major enterprise:
Openness (access to all source code, usually comes with open source)
Flexibility (works on what hardware)
Ease of programming (dev env, libraries available, etc)
Maturity (how many bugs?)
Licencing Cost/restrictions (or lack thereof)
Power efficiency
Support (commercial entity or user community)
Tooling (dev env, debugging, emulator)
I have yet to test the aforementioned frameworks but dev effort will be forthcoming to which ever platform is chosen. However at least from a starting point (and in answer to your q. about VS and debugging, Visual GDB and/or the plugin for VS which supports open OCD is an option, although probably not perfect… I am just hoping that I don’t have to make a hard decision given the amount of effort I have put into my proof of concept devices… However I am sure that what ever happens the source will be released for everyone ;D
@ Gus - Anyway I could go on forever but will hold my breath for an announcement that works with the G400/120 (I have over 20 of these)… Happy to discuss further in private… Hopefully native libraries for Azure IoT Hub and AWS Iot (i.e MQTT/AMQP) are included out of the box
Edit: I thought there was a lot of chatter on the insider forum since my comments last night :whistle:
@ networkfusion, enterprises care less about openness than you think. It’s certainly not the first thing on their list.
You may not have been around during the 4.2 era with open ports from GHI, but there were only a small handful of contributed additions tot he framework, and there were only a few additional hardware platforms that came along through open ports.
Enterprises care more about having ongoing support from a vendor focussed on addressing issues.
@ Brett - Since I lead the project I am talking about, I do care, and vendor lock in for most companies has become a major concern in recent years for our organisation (and a lot of our industry) the need to work WITH someone is just as important (probably due to our companies previous poorly worded contracts)… We are not talking about a i386 computer here… (sorry, not trying to be sarcastic, just frustrated(ish))
