Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Microchip & OnSemi want to buy Atmel?

B

Bob Eld

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim Thompson said:
Except that Atmel has been in self-destruction for at least the past
two years.

What has Atmel done to self destruct, please explain.
 
F

Frank Buss

Jan 1, 1970
0
Bob said:
What has Atmel done to self destruct, please explain.

No self destruct, but at least for one of my clients an Atmel field
applications engineer promised that a new chip will be available in samples
at the beginning of 4th quarter (I think it was the AT91SAM9G20), now looks
like it is postponed to 1st quarter 2009, which is not good, because 2nd
quarter 2009 samples of the end-product are planned for tradeshows. But
maybe this is not the fault of Atmel, but of the field applications
engineer, because I can't find a written promise of the date, and better
wait one quarter instead of having a chip with bugs. But if I would have a
say in planning (I'm only a software expert for this project and not
responsible for the hardware), I would plan projects with chips which I
have lying on my table, only.
 
L

larwe

Jan 1, 1970
0
Seems a strange move for Microchip. Maybe they are simply cashed up, and
see a fire-sale-price, in an industry they know ?

One can only hope that if this acquisition did in fact come to pass,
that uChip would phase out (read: burn at the stake) all parts based
on its frankly fucked-up legacy 8-ish-bit architectures. Budding EEs
would then no longer be poisoned. Dijkstra might as well have written
about the PIC architecture as about BASIC when he said "It is
practically impossible to teach good programming style to students
that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they
are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration".
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
One can only hope that if this acquisition did in fact come to pass,
that uChip would phase out (read: burn at the stake) all parts based
on its frankly fucked-up legacy 8-ish-bit architectures.

Wha ta load of carp, 8 bit PIC is just fine.
Budding EEs
would then no longer be poisoned. Dijkstra might as well have written
about the PIC architecture as about BASIC when he said "It is
practically impossible to teach good programming style to students
that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they
are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration".

Looks like Dijkstra is an idiot.
Probably was projecting some of his own shortcomings.
 
L

larwe

Jan 1, 1970
0
Wha ta load of carp, 8 bit PIC is just fine.

Just out of interest, tell me how to write a C function that takes a
pointer parameter where the pointer may be either in code space or in
RAM.
 
L

larwe

Jan 1, 1970
0
Why ? They ship in large volumes, and obviously do the task adequately.
Elegence usually comes at a cost :)

Ten million flies can't be wrong, eh?
Indeed, Microchip's low Average Selling prices indicate just how
widely popular their bottom-end devices are, and this move may
be an attempt to raise their average selling prices.

It's been a long time since I looked at pricing on their cheapest
cheapest parts (which I think are the SOT-23-6 devices). In the arena
where we play (8~64K flash) Atmel is cheaper than dirt and comparable
PIC devices are much more expensive, besides being a pain in the ass
to program. Code density sucks compared to MSP430 or AVR, too. A rabid
wombat in a bell jar full of crack smoke could not have designed a
less-pleasant ISA than PIC.

We're talking millions of units a year here, so uChip (which is very
hungry to get us to design in their parts) would already be factoring
in as much volume discount and foot-in-the-door discount as they can.
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
Just out of interest, tell me how to write a C function that takes a
pointer parameter where the pointer may be either in code space or in
RAM.

You fail to see the issue at hand.
Small PICs, like the 8 bit, are ment to be programmed is asm.
Sure, many grab, for reasons unknown to me, but
likely incompetence with asm, for the first crappy C subset compiler at hand.
Now _that_ is bad.
 
C

CBFalconer

Jan 1, 1970
0
larwe said:
Ten million flies can't be wrong, eh?

I am amazed at the things programmers carp at and distinguish. The
C language is generally admired, yet it is one of the weirdest
languages in existance. PIC assembly language is also weird (but
works), and is generally poked fun at. Pascal (real, not Turbo) is
almost the soundest language available to all, yet it is studiously
ignored.
 
D

Didi

Jan 1, 1970
0
...
I am amazed at the things programmers carp at and distinguish.  The
C language is generally admired, yet it is one of the weirdest
languages in existance.  PIC assembly language is also weird (but
works), and is generally poked fun at.  Pascal (real, not Turbo) is
almost the soundest language available to all, yet it is studiously
ignored.

C is lower level than Pascal, it wins there. Generally high level
languages are good for newcomers (like tourists who use a phrase
book while on a trip), but for real work one needs lower level
(that is, if you will write a novel you better learn the language
beyond the phrase book).
With so many of the assembly languages being so poorly designed,
no wonder C has gained its popularity, it thrives on poorly
designed hardware platforms. And no wonder the resulting software
is so messy, it takes an alphabet based language to write real
novels (e.g. English) rather than a hyeroglyph based one (not
many great pieces of literature written in Chinese or Japanese...).

Didi
 
F

Frank Buss

Jan 1, 1970
0
larwe said:
Just out of interest, tell me how to write a C function that takes a
pointer parameter where the pointer may be either in code space or in
RAM.

That's no problem. The compiler just has to implement tests at runtime
whenever the pointer is used to execute the PC load instructions with retlw
for reading data in code space or a the mov instruction for reading RAM. To
save code memory, this should be done in a subroutine. Maybe the easiest
and most efficient way to program a PIC would be to implement a small Forth
system for it, if you don't like assembler.
 
Maybe the easiest and most efficient way to program a PIC would be to implement a small Forth
system for it, if you don't like assembler.

If PIC assembly was designed by a rabid wombat high on crack smoke,
then Forth must have been designed by the same wombat tripping on
LSD. ;-)
 
L

linnix

Jan 1, 1970
0
It was not designed in 2008, so why judge it with a 2008 yardstick ?
There was a ceiling on what was even possible, when the PIC was
conceived, decades ago.
There are also MANY PIC cores, PIC is a brand, not a core.
Choose a newer core variant, if that is more to your taste.

Most designers choose the cheapest device that will get the job done.
A toothpaste timer does not really need
memory-agnostc function pointer support ;)

And we don't need flash uC for productions. Most other uCs offer ROM/
OTP version. ROM/OTP AVRs should be much cheaper to make.
 
U

Ulf Samuelsson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Frank Buss said:
No self destruct, but at least for one of my clients an Atmel field
applications engineer promised that a new chip will be available in
samples
at the beginning of 4th quarter (I think it was the AT91SAM9G20), now
looks
like it is postponed to 1st quarter 2009, which is not good, because 2nd
quarter 2009 samples of the end-product are planned for tradeshows.

Funny, I shipped AT91SAM9G20 samples to customers in December 2007 :)
First production batches are already sold out, that is the cause of the
delay.
But maybe this is not the fault of Atmel, but of the field applications
engineer, because I can't find a written promise of the date, and better
wait one quarter instead of having a chip with bugs. But if I would have a
say in planning (I'm only a software expert for this project and not
responsible for the hardware), I would plan projects with chips which I
have lying on my table, only.

--
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
[email protected]
This message is intended to be my own personal view and it
may or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB
 
U

Ulf Samuelsson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Seems a strange move for Microchip. Maybe they are simply cashed up, and
see a fire-sale-price, in an industry they know ?
One can only hope that if this acquisition did in fact come to pass,
that uChip would phase out (read: burn at the stake) all parts based
on its frankly fucked-up legacy 8-ish-bit architectures. Budding EEs
would then no longer be poisoned. Dijkstra might as well have written
about the PIC architecture as about BASIC when he said "It is
practically impossible to teach good programming style to students
that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they
are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration".

A more likely scenario would be that the AVR core was redesigned
into an 11 bit RISC architecture :)

--
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
[email protected]
This message is intended to be my own personal view and it
may or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB
 
U

Ulf Samuelsson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Wha ta load of carp, 8 bit PIC is just fine.
Just out of interest, tell me how to write a C function that takes a
pointer parameter where the pointer may be either in
code space or in RAM.

That is an issue with all true Harvard architecture.
Same issue with the AVR.

You could conceivable pass a 24 bit pointer with a bit indicating
which address space. Pointer handling would be more expensive,
so the answer is normally, - you don't...

I usually copy flash constants to the stack before calling a routine
which only supports RAM pointers.

You could conceivably reserve part of the address space
for code, and another part for data and still keep the Harvard
but that never happened.


--
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
[email protected]
This message is intended to be my own personal view and it
may or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB
 
Top