MacAxePad needs to be updated for 64 bit for future compatibility

pleiser

Senior Member
#1
For the last couple versions, MacOS has started to warn users when opening apps that haven't been updated with 64 bit support, among them MacAxePad. AxePad is generally in desperate need of updates to match at least the essential features of PE6 (although the preprocessor I made helps supplement those features available natively, it's still not as seamless as in PE6). It will be very disruptive to many users if it becomes completely nonfunctional in a future version of macOS (and most people can't justify holding back updates solely for AxePad). When will this be fixed? Is there some cross-platform replacement or major update for AxePad in the works, or is PICAXE doomed to become a Windows only system, leaving many schools, companies behind, and forcing them to buy a windows license and install a VM just to continue using PICAXE?

Thanks,
Patrick
 

techElder

Well-known member
#2
Patrick, more than 5 years ago, I sort of gave up on programming on my iMac. Apple clearly has been moving away from the big-screen Macs, and I don't see them changing this. Actually, it is much cheaper to put an HDMI connected large monitor on an iPad.

I just have my Mac for most purposes and my PC for programming with either of them available with a twist of my chair.
 

tmfkam

Senior Member
#3
I still use my iMac for programming. For home, and another iMac for programming at work. Cross platform usage was one of the first things that led me to PicAxe. I would be sorry to see it lost. I'd like to imagine that a fairly simple recompile with a 64bit compiler would see AxePad 64bit ready.

I really hope that does happen.I'm already flirting with alternatives, and not being able to use the compiler would see me reluctantly leave PicAxe.
 

edmunds

Senior Member
#4
My 5c for a decent mac version, too. Mac is growing, PC is shrinking. Mac has some of the best embedded development tools around (for ARM, for an example, Arduino IDE seems to be fine). Why not picaxe? It is not that difficult to maintain cross-platform code. You just have to be a bit careful about the tools you choose. And the right choices are the right choices for many other reasons, not only cross-platform code.

In the meanwhile, I'm also using a special PC for Picaxe programming since PE6. Mac is occasional for code ideas and some simpler field stuff that gets done on the fly, as PC is normally not around.

Edmunds
 

wapo54001

Senior Member
#5
This issue has been on my mind for some years because I like programming Picaxe chips but I want to leave my PC behind and it seems I won't be able to do that as long as I want to write programs with PE6, and I am not about to give that up!

In my country, Chromebook has been increasingly outselling Mac OS for at least three years. During that same period Chromebooks have become much more flexible -- they now run Android apps -- and also it has become very easy to make Chromebooks into dual-boot devices that will run many Linux distros. While Chromebooks have started out mostly used by K-12 school kids, not so much any more.

Apple grew it's market share long-term by emphasizing K-12 sales, now Google is doing the same. Chrome OS - Android integration will surely get even better over time and out-of-the-box dual boot to Linux capability is a reasonable expectation. Two years ago I gave my spouse a really nice all-aluminium, gold-toned Intel-powered 14" Chromebook as thin and elegant as a high-end PC laptop, but with a 12-hour battery, and the price was $300 instead of a PC's $1000-$2000 pricetag. After updates along the way, this machine now runs Android apps and is easily modified to dual boot between Chrome OS and Linux. It does absolutely everything I need except it doesn't run PE6.

So, it appears that popular computing solutions -- where I live anyway -- are moving away from PCs towards platforms that presently are not supported by Rev-Ed. (My measure of "supported" would be a proper porting of PE6.) But given the time that has elapsed in this state, it's probably correct to assume that Rev-Ed's mission -- to bring programming to the UK educational system -- is being fully met now and a develop-to-follow-the-marketplace approach is not in Rev-Ed's mission statement nor is the direction of computing development outside the UK of any interest. Of course, I am not speaking for Rev-Ed, just verbalizing my impressions from the dozen or so years I've been following this forum.
 
Top