J
john jardine
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
[...]
The scrote that spawned the "tutorial".
What were you planning to shoot?
The scrote that spawned the "tutorial".
What were you planning to shoot?
Are any of the older versions of MPLAB any less "bloated"?
Anthony said:You're just being anti-PIC.
Do you really think there are more people using
805x parts than PICs?
Considering that you have little experience in programming micros
and aparently none with PICs, I'm at a complete loss to
understand why you want to ram PL/M and 805x down everyones throat every
time this stuff comes up.
What is it exactly that is so great about PL/M
and so "Bleh" about C?
john said:The scrote that spawned the "tutorial".
john jardine said:[...]Are any of the older versions of MPLAB any less "bloated"?
No. Even the 10 year old original was bloated and from there they have
laboured on each iteration to increase the bloat by a factor of about
sqrt(2).
Not at all. I'm just poking fun at the oft-seen throwaway "use a PIC" comment.
Not at all. I'm just poking fun at the oft-seen throwaway "use a PIC" comment.
I believe they're used in comparable numbers.
Meow !
You sound a bit over-sensitive to me. I'm not ramming either down anyone's
throat. I was however posing a reasonable question to Ian.
'C' was never intended as a programming language for uCs. It's massive overkill.
PL/M was. Check the efficiency of the code they produce.
Eeyore said:Not at all. I'm just poking fun at the oft-seen throwaway "use a PIC"
comment.
I believe they're used in comparable numbers.
Meow !
You sound a bit over-sensitive to me. I'm not ramming either down
anyone's throat. I was however posing a reasonable question to Ian.
'C' was never intended as a programming language for uCs. It's
massive overkill. PL/M was. Check the efficiency of the code they
produce.
I agree. WTF is a "Manifest constant" anyway ?
100% correct, We use them along with AVR's in industrial applications..David said:Like it or not PIC is now a ubiquitous term that referes to a
microcontrollers in general.
In reality people pick the microcontroller that suits them and their
project.
PIC did not get to be the #1 selling microcontroller in the world by
being a "joke" of any sort. That must mean that more than hobbyists
are using them to flash LEDs.
I don't think it's #1 now (reliable figures are hard to get), but it's
still probably in the top 3.
Dave.
I can think of no reason whatever to use a language (assembler) that requires
more than one line of code to even add two numbers, never mind anything more
complex.
Yep. Over the years they've given excellent coverage and support to many PICian field said:john jardine said:[...]Are any of the older versions of MPLAB any less "bloated"?
No. Even the 10 year old original was bloated and from there they have
laboured on each iteration to increase the bloat by a factor of about
sqrt(2).
Ever heard of the EPE magazine TK3? - I think that contains an assembler
but I'd have to dig out my collection of old magazines to find out.
Not at all. I'm just poking fun at the oft-seen throwaway "use a PIC" comment.
Probably, it's their counterpart to the Microchip PIC. Atmel also makes ARM
processors. Of all the processors I've played with, I think the ARM has the
most beautiful architecture.
At least "some" of the people proposing PICs have supplied code, have you
ever posted any code?
PICs took over the 8-bit market about 5 years ago.
AIUI, PL/M is a mish-mash of PL/1, ALGOL and some other odd stuff.
John said:---
I don't know if they still use it, because I'm not in that game any
more, but I hated Intel for their segmented gangster-like addressing
scheme and I fell in love with Motorola's lovely flat address space
from the getgo.
I've never played with Microchips' stuff because it always seemed to
me that talking to their chips was like having to use a really fast,
power wasting clock to get some really simple shit done quickly.
Also, I've never had occasion to use Atmel's stuff because I've
always been able to do everything I needed to with Motorola's stuff.
Plus, I'm tooled up for Motorola.
If you've had a chance to look at Motorola's (Freescale's)
instruction set and addressing modes for 8 bitters and have compared
them against Atmel's, I'd be really, really, interested in your
opinions.
David L. Jones said:The top quality C compilers can produce superbly tight and efficient
code, even on the 14bit PICs.
With C compilers you do often get what
you pay for. All HHL language compilers are not created equal, there
is massive variability between vendors. You can't just generalise and
say PL/M is better than C or whatever.
And if the efficiency of your C (or any HLL) compiler is that
important to your project then you are too close to pushing the limits
of your design, and should probably re-think your choice of processor
for that project.
Sometimes it's necessary for various reasons of
course, but on your average project the efficiency of your HLL won't
matter a rats.
Anthony said:At least "some" of the people proposing PICs have supplied code,
Anthony said:AIUI, PL/M is a mish-mash of PL/1, ALGOL and some other odd stuff. It looks
like some bastardization of COBOL and C to me.