Author Topic: STM32F4 Discovery Board running .NET MicroFramework  (Read 8956 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline KedasProbe

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 533
  • Country: be
STM32F4 Discovery Board running .NET MicroFramework
« on: October 23, 2012, 05:50:50 pm »
http://singularengineer.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/stm32f4-discovery-board-running-net-microframework/

Maybe not useful but interesting, I assume this will also work on the STM32F3 board (size)?
Ordered a STM32F3DISCOVERY today (14Euro, delivery 22 dec  :o) maybe I change it to STM32F4DISCOVERY.
Not everything that counts can be measured. Not everything that can be measured counts.
[W. Bruce Cameron]
 

Online Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9637
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: STM32F4 Discovery Board running .NET MicroFramework
« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2012, 06:50:51 pm »
do i really need .NET?
if something can select, how cant it be intelligent? if something is intelligent, how cant it exist?
 

Offline poptones

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 711
  • Country: 00
Re: STM32F4 Discovery Board running .NET MicroFramework
« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2012, 06:53:34 pm »
"As someone who used to get BSOD's often, I was quite pleased that during a recent deployment hangup, it did not crash my system..."

High praise for software indeed.

Why on earth would someone run MS server software on an embedded device?
 

Offline andyturk

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 892
  • Country: us
Re: STM32F4 Discovery Board running .NET MicroFramework
« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2012, 08:38:00 pm »
Why on earth would someone run MS server software on an embedded device?
No kidding. Putting javascript on that thing would be much more interesting.  :P
 

Offline poptones

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 711
  • Country: 00
Re: STM32F4 Discovery Board running .NET MicroFramework
« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2012, 08:56:43 pm »
Well it needs to be attached to something in order for javascript to be useful. And .net allows for that, but it seems there would be many other ways to go with this thing. I guess the issue really is that I just don't understand why someone would run MS software - especially .net when MS itself will inevitably be phasing it out. Skillsets like php and apache and perl and python and java are much more transportable than a proprietary niche product like .net. And yes I realize some big players use it, but once you get outside that handful of "big players" it's very much a niche. Mono, the open source version, is disappearing from the open source radar as more and more distro makers realize what a stupid idea it was from the start. The last thing I want running on my server is a pile of .exe files.

Addendo: After reading through that article I am laughing to myself at all those folks who say linux is complicated. Yeesh.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2012, 09:02:01 pm by poptones »
 

Offline Bloch

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
  • Country: dk
Re: STM32F4 Discovery Board running .NET MicroFramework
« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2012, 09:21:02 pm »
especially .net when MS itself will inevitably be phasing it out.


Link please  :o
 

Offline poptones

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 711
  • Country: 00
Re: STM32F4 Discovery Board running .NET MicroFramework
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2012, 10:03:45 pm »
I have no concrete evidence they're phasing it out. I only said "inevitably" because it is. What happened to Starlight? Win32? com? If it is proprietary technology (and this is) then you are at the mercy of the one supplying it.

Like I said: there are many, many more portable skills. In fact, I suspect it would be easier to put linux on this thing and run apache and whatever else you want. That article sure doesn't make any of this look easy.

Now, here's my disclaimer: I've used asp and I've used php, and I still prefer being able to code in javascript. I don't like php but then I don't care much for cpp either. But they are both industry standards that enjoy much more market penetration than MS's proprietary toolset. It would be a much more protabel skillset to become familiar with multilingual support via eclipse than to limit yourself to Microsoft's proprietary languages and their IDE. I've worked on projects interfacing with MS visual tools at times using nothing more than a text editor, it's not like there's no portable alternatives to visual studio.
 

Offline andyturk

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 892
  • Country: us
Re: STM32F4 Discovery Board running .NET MicroFramework
« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2012, 12:04:23 am »
Well it needs to be attached to something in order for javascript to be useful.
Sorry, I was attempting to make a snide comment.
 

Online Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9637
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: STM32F4 Discovery Board running .NET MicroFramework
« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2012, 06:35:05 am »
I have no concrete evidence they're phasing it out. I only said "inevitably" because it is. What happened to Starlight? Win32? com?
every single current technology will phase out in the future, the same as old technology before. you dont need evidence for that, simply a history lesson. if you can live for 100 years, you'll do nothing but mourning technology are phasing out. you dont need old volks wagen anymore when you have a ferrari, in other word, better option will replace the former. thats a "statistically majority" a fact.
if something can select, how cant it be intelligent? if something is intelligent, how cant it exist?
 

Offline poptones

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 711
  • Country: 00
Re: STM32F4 Discovery Board running .NET MicroFramework
« Reply #9 on: October 24, 2012, 07:45:49 am »
Uh huh. The difference is the time frame. One of the things I hated most about windows was constantly having to reinstall stuff. Of course you do the same thing with linux, the difference is in how you had to do it. I'd build software that used jscript engine 5 and it works fine, 3 months later a new version comes out and all my old code is broken. This is just one reason I left windows and never looked back. I have folders on my system of customized gnome apps, I install a new version of ubuntu and IF the app no longer works all I have to do is rebuild the same code and it works just fine. I have apps nearly ten years old that still build perfectly with no changes. That's 7 major os revisions, they still build perfectly. Microsoft was breaking my scripted apps every 3 to six months. Forget that.
 

Online Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9637
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: STM32F4 Discovery Board running .NET MicroFramework
« Reply #10 on: October 24, 2012, 10:48:16 am »
thats the problem when they developed a concept/software/framework in a hurry and profit-based. and thats also a problem when the programmer (you) so eager to use the latest technology, its just unstable and you are doomed to it. there's 2 type of programmer that i can imagine right now... 1) rely on other's code or technology or higher level language/concept, getting all chunks of objects from everywhere and compile into their application, i believe this is how usually "professional" programmers do, professional means "fast-paced" and "profitable-based". and then there's (2) programmer who made their own code or technology, assembly if they have to, built based on the lowest level layer or hardware as much as they can possibly reach to. i'm not sure if this is what people called codemonkey, they have to build from scratch, probably reinventing the wheels, unproductive and "not professional" (be carefull by what you understand as being professional), they are not affected much by the "waves" they are happy in their caves, not like the former, if the top level "foodchain" collapse, they collapse.
if something can select, how cant it be intelligent? if something is intelligent, how cant it exist?
 

Offline poptones

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 711
  • Country: 00
Re: STM32F4 Discovery Board running .NET MicroFramework
« Reply #11 on: October 24, 2012, 07:08:09 pm »
I don't know what pot you're putting me into there, but I'm not talking about "low level" anything. I'm talking about using a damn javascript interpreter and they manage to make even THAT not backward compatible.

BTW avisynth was built to the lowest level optimization possible (assembler mmx) and it's stable enough major studios use it and big websites use it as a frame server for their encoding. Ironically, it's more stable than windows.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 07:10:48 pm by poptones »
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 19374
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: STM32F4 Discovery Board running .NET MicroFramework
« Reply #12 on: October 28, 2012, 02:14:02 pm »
If you want to go 'high level' then I suggest you look at elua (embedded Lua): http://www.eluaproject.net/

There seems to be support for the STM32F4 discovery board as well:
http://wiki.eluaproject.net/STM32F4DISCOVERY

Lua is a relatively new language which has a very broad use. It is used in online games (even my 10 year old son can program a little bit in Lua) but it has many more serious purposes as well. One of my customers uses Lua for the web-based configuration pages of their product.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2012, 02:16:49 pm by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline Bloch

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
  • Country: dk
Re: STM32F4 Discovery Board running .NET MicroFramework
« Reply #13 on: October 28, 2012, 03:30:16 pm »
I install a new version of ubuntu and IF the app no longer works all I have to do is rebuild the same code and it works just fine. I have apps nearly ten years old that still build perfectly with no changes. That's 7 major os revisions, they still build perfectly.


Let me see you want every user to recompile every program with each new os rev. ?  :o


Ok glad i am using windows. Old software works just fine. Well i must admit that i dont use my old dos software anymore so i dont know if i can run it on my new pc  ;D  [size=78%] [/size]
 

Online Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9637
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: STM32F4 Discovery Board running .NET MicroFramework
« Reply #14 on: October 28, 2012, 04:16:42 pm »
Let me see you want every user to recompile every program with each new os rev. ?  :o
Ok glad i am using windows. Old software works just fine. Well i must admit that i dont use my old dos software anymore so i dont know if i can run it on my new pc  ;D  [size=78%] [/size]
just like the old time! (run in XP)

the genuine advice on how to start c, but sadly these days genuine (old) people got abandoned :( :P
 ;)
« Last Edit: October 28, 2012, 04:19:02 pm by Mechatrommer »
if something can select, how cant it be intelligent? if something is intelligent, how cant it exist?
 

Offline mrflibble

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2007
  • Country: nl
Re: STM32F4 Discovery Board running .NET MicroFramework
« Reply #15 on: October 28, 2012, 05:26:22 pm »
I install a new version of ubuntu and IF the app no longer works all I have to do is rebuild the same code and it works just fine. I have apps nearly ten years old that still build perfectly with no changes. That's 7 major os revisions, they still build perfectly.


Let me see you want every user to recompile every program with each new os rev. ?  :o

That's slightly out of context compared to what I suspect poptones meant. :P

Generally you don't need to recompile, as the old binary typically will run fine (depending on binary + provided libs, duh, the usual). Poptone's point being that IF you have to recompile for whatever reason, on linux you stand a pretty good chance of cleanly compiling your old code several OS upgrades later.

And yes yes, I realize it all boils down to your build environment. Obviously you can do a dev setup on win 8 that will compile your old school dos 3.1 program. The point is that on windows that's a little less trivial, and certainly a little less supported by the primary support channel (MS).

Anyways, not interested in a windoze vs lin00ks debate. Pick what you like for whatever reasons you like. Personally I pick the unix route because for the stuff I do any knowledge + code I produce has a longer half-life than the equivalent would have on a microsoft platform. If MS makes more sense for the stuff you write, have at it. :)

 

Offline Bloch

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
  • Country: dk
Re: STM32F4 Discovery Board running .NET MicroFramework
« Reply #16 on: October 28, 2012, 07:53:57 pm »
Anyways, not interested in a windoze vs lin00ks debate.
Same here but then "facts" are wrong i need to raise a flag  :)


code I produce has a longer half-life than the equivalent would have on a microsoft platform.


Not sure that half-life means but here are that i work on


Code: [Select]
Products Released             Lifecycle Start Date    Mainstream Support End Date   Extended Support EndDate
Windows Embedded CE 6.0       30/11/2006              09/04/2013                    10/04/2018
Windows XP Embedded           30/01/2002              11/01/2011                    12/01/2016

So i don't think that Microsoft is that bad.

 

Offline poptones

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 711
  • Country: 00
Re: STM32F4 Discovery Board running .NET MicroFramework
« Reply #17 on: October 28, 2012, 08:39:00 pm »
I ran windows, it's not like I never had it. I DID try to avoid it, I was spoiled early on by SGI's workstations and IRIX, but I finally gave in and ran windows 95, but I upgraded to NT4 just as soon as I could, then to Win2k. It was then, after some time I abandoned it and went to linux. So it's not like I was entrenched, Windows just allowed me to "get by" because I couldn't afford an Indy workstation and linux wasn't yet practical as a desktop.

But during those few short years I encountered all sorts of nonsense. I don't game much but I bought (and I never buy software) American McGee's Alice because it looked so cool. I never got to play it. It wouldn't run on win2k, they even said so in the forums. So I got a copy of XP and installed that in a dual boot - same crap, won't run, now there's some sort of dlls you have to get and then shave a chicken while reciting their magic incantation or something...

Long story short: I know from firsthand experience how difficult and tricky Windows can be to make run off the shelf software. I know from experience how software that runs on windows X won't run on windows Y. And I know what a fucking nightmare it can be to install their build environment. It used to take two fucking days of work to bring up a new system with Microsoft's dev tools - all the downloads and upgrades and dependancies. I've doen development, I know this not just from my experience but because I've seen those around me groan when the notion of a "new machine" was mentioned. None of us wanted to "upgrade" hardware because we knew what a nightmare it would be to migrate our build environments.

With linux one can recompile with a copy and paste. I have friends who are essentially illiterate with computers who can follow instructions and build software as it suits them.

apt-get install build-essentials
./configure
make install

Give it a few minutes and you're done.

I guess I really should consider myself lucky: I only "had" to use MS software a few short years, from about 1995 to 2001. But I still wish IRIX was being developed and supported - their office pack was a thing of genius and I've never seen another come close. Every document was just another layer - you didn't have to run this app or that one, you referenced the layer and the software adapted to your needs. The popularity of Microsoft's Office and the attempts by others to emulate it has set back office software two decades.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf