Last semester, I was enrolled in RPI’s Embedded Control class, better known as LITEC. It’s a class that is advertised on the School of Engineering’s website and is shown to many prospectives as they tour our campus. I really enjoyed the class and having the opportunity to design and imple­ment a “smart car” with the help of my partner; at the same time, however, I was dismayed that the com­piler software that was used in the class was an evaluation version.
The limitations of the compiler do not inhibit the ability to code the basic control algorithms, which allow the car to obtain the “smart car” behavior of following the track with the help of its optical tracking units. The invi­tational competition that follows the class, however, chal­lenges students to go beyond the basics; to design the most innovative enhancements to add to the functionality of the car.
As I added software func­tionality to our code base last semester, the compiler eventually refused to assemble the code that I had written—claiming that I had exceeded its code limit. In fact, I did not exceed the programmable limit of the microcontroller; rather, I had exceeded the amount of code allowed to compile in the evaluation version of the compiler that was used for the class.
This really made me wonder why we were using an evaluation ver­sion of the compiler. Since I pay $14,475 tuition each semester, why is it that the software used in our classes is not a full version?
As part of my freshman engin­eering core, I was required to take Engineering Graphics and CAD. While we do use an educational version of the software that is dongled to the RPI network, I never ran into an issue with the software that was caused by the fact that we were using an educational edition of the software.
My experience in LITEC, how­ever, was quite the contrary. I ended up actually commenting out some of the code I had written in order to get the compiler to assemble the code for the micro­controller. I asked if students who requested it could be given a copy of the full version (since I was told there were copies on-hand), but I was told that we were instead expected to use the evaluation version of the software.
Since tuition is almost $30,000 annually, I certainly think that the software used in classes should not have such limits that stifle adding functionality. I really hope I will find that this run-in with evaluation software is more the exception than the rule as I progress through my other middle- and upper-level classes here.
