¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

  1. BITX20
  2. Messages
Single Messages Topics Expanded Polls

Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?

 

I have seen this approach used on the Ten Tec REBEL and PATRIOT and in my opinion was a disaster for people who do not know what we are talking about!


Taking this approach I suggest an application, running on both linux and Windows, that is a configuration menu.? Check what you want and the app tells you if it fits.? The app generates and compiles the configured system for the user and

downloads it.


We are after all trying to solve an issue with uninformed users as the informed users have already figured out how to configure and load software from our community.



rOn

On May 14, 2018 at 12:38 PM "Jack Purdum via Groups.Io" <jjpurdum@...> wrote:

I think it could be done without too much confusion by using preprocessor directives. That way, you don't actually mess with the code; you only change the symbolic constants you wish to affect. For example, if you don't use CW or CAT, then

#define CWINTERFACE ? ??????? false??????? // Set this to true if you want to use CW
#define CATINTERFACE????????? false??????? // Set this to true if you wish to use a CAT interface

and so on. The burden of getting everything right then falls on the programmer, not the user. The user would, however, be responsible for their own code additions/deletions.

As to how much space this saves will depend upon the programs kept/deleted and what you mean by "very much program space". For some users, 50 bytes might be enough to add something they want at the cost of deleting some existing feature. The answer to that's really a try-it-and-see answer.

Jack, W8TEE


On Monday, May 14, 2018, 12:10:53 PM EDT, Tim Gorman <tgorman2@...> wrote:


This is where problems will begin to occur.

Are you going to add in functionality to modify ubitx_menu.ino
on the fly? Or are you going to break up ubitx_menu.ino into a lot of
little pieces that can be included/excluded at compile time? How do you
tie including/excluding menu items to controlling the actual compile of
functions in the code?

If you just inhibit access to the alignment software after it is used it
doesn't lower the amount of memory used for the program unless you do
so with a recompile and reload. Is that really what we want the user to
have to do?

Does deleting a mode actually save very much program space? Most
functions are common between modes, you still have to transition
between receive and transmit, only some variables change value.

Does doing all this actually make it harder for the experimenter to
modify the code because it makes it more difficult to lay out all the
interactions between the code that might be affected? I know it's hard
enough for me already to trace through all the code when I want to
change something. Making it more difficult is not what I would want to
see.

tim ab0wr

On Mon, 14 May 2018 14:18:46 +0000 (UTC)
"Jack Purdum via Groups.Io" <jjpurdum=[email protected]> wrote:

> This is a good idea and might make it easier to peel off those
> features not desired. The source already lends itself to this
> approach. I have not studied it closely enough to know whether
> specific files (e.g., ubitx_keyer.ino, ubitx_cat.ino) can be taken
> out of the compile chain as it currently stands.
>
> Jack, W8TEE
>
>
>? ? On Monday, May 14, 2018, 10:05:13 AM EDT, K9HZ
> <bill@...> wrote:
>
> In fact, to expand on this¡­ I think Ian should consider block defines
> for sections of the code that people want or don¡¯t want.? He has
> already done this in selecting the type of display (2 line or 4
> line).? Some of the things to block define might be:
>
>? ?
>
> 1.?????? CAT
>
> 2.?????? WSPR
>
> 3.?????? Alignment ?(if you¡¯ve done it once, why do it again?)
>
> 4.?????? CW? (some people only use SSB)
>
> 5.?????? SSB? (some people only use CW).
>
>? ?
>
> I¡¯m sure there are others.? This way there is plenty of room if you
> want to experiment.? Just shut stuff off.? In fact, there could be an
> experiment define that turns on or shuts off your experiments too.
>
>? ?
>
> Just a thought¡­
>
>? ?
>
>? ?
>
> Dr. William J. Schmidt - K9HZ J68HZ 8P6HK ZF2HZ PJ4/K9HZ VP5/K9HZ
> PJ2/K9HZ
>
>? ?
>
> Owner - Operator
>
> Big Signal Ranch ¨C K9ZC
>
> Staunton, Illinois
>
>? ?
>
> Owner ¨C Operator
>
> Villa Grand Piton ¨C J68HZ
>
> Soufriere, St. Lucia W.I.
>
> Rent it: www.VillaGrandPiton.com
>
> Like us on Facebook!
>
>? ?
>
>



?
Join [email protected] to automatically receive all group messages.