GOOSEE version 1.2 just uploaded. Free visual program design, project management/documentor, with auto C code generation. GOOSEE evolution has surged ahead -- checkout the exciting new features of v1.2.
Anybody out there in embedded land actually using this? I've got Kauler's book and have read through it and can't help asking myself "Why?". It seems to me just a different way of writing the same structured code, without a higher level of abstraction to make comprehension, any easier. Kauler, himself, seems very excited by it, but I'd be more convinced if there was a little discussion elsewhere. I'm also a more than a little scared by one of his perceived plusses "the rapid evolution of GOOSEE".
> GOOSEE version 1.2 just uploaded. > Free visual program design, project management/documentor, > with auto C code generation. > GOOSEE evolution has surged ahead -- checkout the > exciting new features of v1.2.
Alf Katz wrote: > Anybody out there in embedded land actually using this?
I'm not in the habit of downloading things called "GOOSEE" from a person that identifies themselves as "void". Personally, I wouldn't put this product in the back of my truck.
> Alf Katz wrote: > > Anybody out there in embedded land actually using this?
> I'm not in the habit of downloading things called "GOOSEE" from a person that > identifies themselves as "void". Personally, I wouldn't put this product in the > back of my truck.
Well I know my say-so probably doesn't count for much to you either, but I know Barry Kauler through business contacts, and I can vouch for him - still haven't used GOOSEE myself, however.
Personally, I am getting hit by 20-30 spams a day - including one or two trojans a week, mostly from posting to newsgroups I imagine - and I am about at the point of posting with 'void' as my reply-to also. It's getting to the point where a lot of my dial-in download limit is chewed up by the Spam I receive!
While I haven't bothered to look at GOOSEE, I did purchase & read his book about GOOFEE and I thought that the methodology described was quite aptly named. The book reminded me of that dilbert cartoon about incomprehensible diagrams.
Perhaps Kauler has an offbeat sense of humour?
Llew Griffiths
-------------------------------- LLEWELLYN GRIFFITHS Llew Griffiths & Associates Pty Limited Melbourne, Australia info AT llga DOT com DOT au The reply address is a black hole for spam
"Alf Katz" <alfk...@removethis.ieee.org> wrote in message
> Anybody out there in embedded land actually using this? I've got Kauler's > book and have read through it and can't help asking myself "Why?". It seems > to me just a different way of writing the same structured code, without a > higher level of abstraction to make comprehension, any easier. Kauler, > himself, seems very excited by it, but I'd be more convinced if there was a > little discussion elsewhere. I'm also a more than a little scared by one of > his perceived plusses "the rapid evolution of GOOSEE".
> "void" <v...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message > news:eoJ06.254$G4.3657@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > GOOSEE version 1.2 just uploaded. > > Free visual program design, project management/documentor, > > with auto C code generation. > > GOOSEE evolution has surged ahead -- checkout the > > exciting new features of v1.2.
> While I haven't bothered to look at GOOSEE, I did purchase & read his book > about GOOFEE and I thought that the methodology described was quite aptly > named. The book reminded me of that dilbert cartoon about incomprehensible > diagrams.
> Perhaps Kauler has an offbeat sense of humour?
> Llew Griffiths
> -------------------------------- > LLEWELLYN GRIFFITHS > Llew Griffiths & Associates Pty Limited > Melbourne, Australia > info AT llga DOT com DOT au > The reply address is a black hole for spam
> "Alf Katz" <alfk...@removethis.ieee.org> wrote in message > news:7cW06.18951$Xx3.83053@news1.eburwd1.vic.optushome.com.au... > > Anybody out there in embedded land actually using this? I've got Kauler's > > book and have read through it and can't help asking myself "Why?". It > seems > > to me just a different way of writing the same structured code, without a > > higher level of abstraction to make comprehension, any easier. Kauler, > > himself, seems very excited by it, but I'd be more convinced if there was > a > > little discussion elsewhere. I'm also a more than a little scared by one > of > > his perceived plusses "the rapid evolution of GOOSEE".
> > "void" <v...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message > > news:eoJ06.254$G4.3657@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > > GOOSEE version 1.2 just uploaded. > > > Free visual program design, project management/documentor, > > > with auto C code generation. > > > GOOSEE evolution has surged ahead -- checkout the > > > exciting new features of v1.2.
Have the book and the tools. Whilst I would not use them because I have access to (expensive) professional tools there is nothing inherently wrong with GOOSEE. There are other things on the web site that would be of use to SW developers.
I agree that using an email name of "void" is not a good idea.
>> Anybody out there in embedded land actually using this?
>I'm not in the habit of downloading things called "GOOSEE" from a person that >identifies themselves as "void". Personally, I wouldn't put this product in the >back of my truck.
>Kevin
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\ /\/\/ ch...@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
> > Anybody out there in embedded land actually using this?
> I'm not in the habit of downloading things called "GOOSEE" from a person that > identifies themselves as "void". Personally, I wouldn't put this product in the > back of my truck.
> Kevin
Hmm, and for your next objective, analytical comment ?...
> I checked out the last version. The visual interface is very comfortable > and natural.
> However, I couldn't see how to use it for developing application software.
> Is Goosee intended mainly for embedded systems? Is the format documented, > so e.g. we could write code-generating software in other languages?
Hi, this is "void" responding, There are several people that I know of using GOOSEE in a hobby capacity. Maybe others that haven't contacted me. I don't know of anyone using it professionally. The current implementation of the small-GOO visual language, in the GOOSEE software development tool, is only a thin visual layer over C -- you are really quite close to the C code at all times, so there are no surprises. If you can program in C, you can use GOOSEE. As to whether you would or not, that's another matter. Some people have told me that there are programmers who are "visually oriented" and those who aren't -- the latter will prefer to stick with code (someone told me that there is an actual difference in the brain).
Anyway, it's free. A completely free visual design and documentation tool should not be hurriedly criticised especially if you don't know anything about it. My book, incidentally, is way out of date, and should not be used as a basis for evaluating GOOSEE. All necessary docs are now on-line. And how can it be compared with commercial tools out there that cost $10,000?
My critical assessment of my own product, wearing my user's hat, is that it is a useful visual front-end and documentor, but is weak in the round-trip of the development cycle. That is, you generate the code from a GOOSEE diagram, then you compile and go to a debugger/emulator/simulator. But if you want to make a small change to the code, you have to go right back to the GOOSEE diagram to make the change, whereas what you would prefer is to modify the code directly -- you can of course directly modify the code, but then the GOO diagram is no longer correct. I don't know how general-purpose $10,000 visual program design tools solve this problem, though I have read about development tools that are two-way, so a change to the generated code automatically reflects back into the diagrams.
>>Anyway, it's free. A completely free visual design and documentation tool
should not be hurriedly criticised especially if you don't know anything about it. <<
Of course not. They were questions, not criticisms. I have a lot of respect and gratitude for your work in the past, most notably your Windows assembler book and code.
There's a specific motivation for the question. I've worked with a CASE tool for several years, Dbsee++, which is used to design and generate database applications in Visual C. Recently (about 8 months ago, the project is taking very long), I started developing software to generate code in other languages, including MASM, Perl/Tk, Fivewin (an Xbase derivative), and Lcc-Win32.
Ultimately, I would like to place this into the public domain. Possibly not all of the language options will generate complete applications, especially at the beginning, but for example the MASM code will have the menus and dialog boxes, at least, until I figure a way to integrate the database access code in MASM (using Iczelion's tools, and optionally Randy's HLA language to help accomplish all of this).
The problem is that Dbsee++ itself is a commercial package. Dbsee++ will remain as one of the CASE options, but it would be good to have a free CASE option as well. I have no desire to develop a RAD/CASE/design GUI, would rather use something that's already been tested and works pretty well.
So, in summary, I'm keeping the eyes and ears out for a freeware GUI tool to use for application development to plug into a freeware code generator.
>>I don't know how general-purpose $10,000 visual program design tools solve
this problem, though I have read about development tools that are two-way...<<
The specific tool mentioned above, Dbsee++, has reverse-engineering capabilities. You don't modify the code directly, but rather place your user-defined code in special slots in the GUI.
Actually, you can also modify the code directly, but you need to surround it with special delimiting strings. You can then pull it back into the Dbsee++ repository, and continue designing or just regenerate everything. The tool itself, by the way, was about $1,000 when I bought it a few years ago.
So, if you know of any CASE tools that seem to fit the bill, Barry/Mr. void/sir, let me know when you get a chance. Good luck with Goosee.
At a deep level I am aware that I 'see' everything in my brain in a visual sense. I've always assumed that others were the same and had to be taught to think in other terms. I think that the eyes came first and then the languages :) I played with your program for a little bit - really cool! Do you know if anyone has tried to represent assembly language - I guess it would be machine code, because assemble language is the mnemonics; but it could be easily converted to assembly :) So, what I'm asking is what do you think of the possibility of a Graphical Assembly language, or has it been done? I don't see much activity on comp.lang.visual , is there a better place to get information on the visual languages that are available?
> > I checked out the last version. The visual interface is very > comfortable > > and natural.
> > However, I couldn't see how to use it for developing application > software.
> > Is Goosee intended mainly for embedded systems? Is the format > documented, > > so e.g. we could write code-generating software in other languages?
> Hi, this is "void" responding, > There are several people that I know of using GOOSEE in a hobby > capacity. Maybe others that haven't contacted me. I don't know of > anyone using it professionally. > The current implementation of the small-GOO visual language, in the > GOOSEE software development tool, is only a thin visual layer over C > -- you are really quite close to the C code at all times, so there are no > surprises. If you can program in C, you can use GOOSEE. > As to whether you would or not, that's another matter. Some people > have told me that there are programmers who are "visually oriented" > and those who aren't -- the latter will prefer to stick with code > (someone told me that there is an actual difference in the brain).
> Anyway, it's free. A completely free visual design and documentation > tool should not be hurriedly criticised especially if you don't know > anything about it. My book, incidentally, is way out of date, and should > not be used as a basis for evaluating GOOSEE. All necessary docs > are now on-line. > And how can it be compared with commercial tools out there that cost > $10,000?
> My critical assessment of my own product, wearing my user's hat, is that > it is a useful visual front-end and documentor, but is weak in the > round-trip > of the development cycle. That is, you generate the code from a GOOSEE > diagram, then you compile and go to a debugger/emulator/simulator. But if > you want to make a small change to the code, you have to go right back to > the GOOSEE diagram to make the change, whereas what you would prefer > is to modify the code directly -- you can of course directly modify the > code, > but then the GOO diagram is no longer correct. > I don't know how general-purpose $10,000 visual program design tools > solve this problem, though I have read about development tools that are > two-way, so a change to the generated code automatically reflects back > into the diagrams.
void wrote: > Some people have told me that there are programmers who are "visually oriented" and > those who aren't -- the latter will prefer to stick with code (someone
told me that there is
> an actual difference in the brain).
Yup...I did a little biology in school once and this is the case...different people have different internal ways of thinking...it has been attributed by some that Einstein's brilliance was partly due to the fact that his brain had a large visual cortex which meant he could visualise stuff easier than most...
One of the team that helped with the design of the first silicon chips has confessed that he actually developed some of the design while on LSD, as he found that he could better "see" how things worked in his head...he claims that he actually created complete working models of primitive chips inside his head...(note: Beth does not endorse drugs...this is just something I saw on a BCC documentary once ;)...LSD, roughly speaking, temporarily wires up your brain all wrong (or, permanently, if you take too much or take it too often - you have been warned!) and parts not normally attached to one another are linked, parts that were normally linked, broken...etc.
There are actually tests you could do to see if you're more visual, more tactile, more audio, etc...personally, I did the tests and I'm very much "audio" based in my thinking, apparently...which probably explains the "stream of consciousness" and verbose way I write...not that I'm making excuses...lol ;)
Yes, This Is "Off-Topic" But Its Short And Might Be Interesting To Some, Beth :)
I took the test and was not a visual thinker or audio thinker -- most people are one or the other. Turns out I am a conceptual thinker - and practically oriented ... building software and electronics that work.
