On Jan 3, 7:43 am, Leon <leon...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> I've got thestarterkit, it works OK and is a good tool for
> evaluating thePIC32. It has an expansionconnectorthat could be used
> for interfacing to external hardware, and one or two people are
> designing boards for it.
>
...
> Leon


Does anyone recognize the connector?  I'd like to send a daughter
board design off to Olimex.
A Mouser part number would be most excellent also.

Hans-Bernhard Br�ker wrote:
> Al Borowski wrote:
>> CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Shift to the appropriate directory.  Launch and use the editor.
>>> Write and save the makefile.  Write the program.  Save.  ALT-TAB
>>> normally transfers you to the other window.  Type 'make'.  Run the
>>> result to evaluate.  ALT-TAB and edit the appropriate file.  Etc.
> 
>> Isn't it easier to just hit a single button marked "build" ?
> 
> Only if your finger happens to be on the mouse at the time.  Which,
> considering you were supposedly just editing the source code, i.e.
> typing something a moment before, should be quite unlikely.
> 
> At all other times, a keyboard action ought to be faster than
> relocating one hand to the pointing device, finding that darn mouse
> pointer on the screen, locating it where it needs to be, and
> pressing a button.
> 
> Point-and-click user interfaces are efficient for newbies, or for
> rarely used tools.  But in the long run, for tools you use all the
> time, particularly when you're doing text-heavy work like coding,
> you need an interface that lets you keep the fingers where they
> generally are, and offers as many different possible choices in
> the same instant as possible.  Keyboard shortcuts do that, mouse
> menus don't.

Hooray. There are still people who recognize the failings of
rodents.

-- 
 Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
   Try the download section.


-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Al Borowski wrote:
> On Jan 4, 5:45 pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> Shift to the appropriate directory.  Launch and use the editor.
>> Write and save the makefile.  Write the program.  Save.  ALT-TAB
>> normally transfers you to the other window.  Type 'make'.  Run the
>> result to evaluate.  ALT-TAB and edit the appropriate file.  Etc.

> Isn't it easier to just hit a single button marked "build" ?

Only if your finger happens to be on the mouse at the time.  Which, 
considering you were supposedly just editing the source code, i.e. 
typing something a moment before, should be quite unlikely.

At all other times, a keyboard action ought to be faster than relocating 
one hand to the pointing device, finding that darn mouse pointer on the 
screen, locating it where it needs to be, and pressing a button.

Point-and-click user interfaces are efficient for newbies, or for rarely 
used tools.  But in the long run, for tools you use all the time, 
particularly when you're doing text-heavy work like coding, you need an 
interface that lets you keep the fingers where they generally are, and 
offers as many different possible choices in the same instant as 
possible.  Keyboard shortcuts do that, mouse menus don't.

On 2008-01-06, Al Borowski <al.borowski@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 5:45 pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Shift to the appropriate directory.  Launch and use the editor.
>> Write and save the makefile.  Write the program.  Save.  ALT-TAB
>> normally transfers you to the other window.  Type 'make'.  Run the
>> result to evaluate.  ALT-TAB and edit the appropriate file.  Etc.
>
> Isn't it easier to just hit a single button marked "build" ?

If typing "make" is too much for you, then assign a key in your
editor to run "make".  In jed (an emacs clone), I usually
configure F10 so that it runs "make" in a buffer and prepares
to parse the output for error messages.


-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  CHUBBY CHECKER just
                                  at               had a CHICKEN SANDWICH in
                               visi.com            downtown DULUTH!

On Jan 6, 7:33=A0am, Al  Borowski <al.borow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 5:45 pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Shift to the appropriate directory. =A0Launch and use the editor.
> > Write and save the makefile. =A0Write the program. =A0Save. =A0ALT-TAB
> > normally transfers you to the other window. =A0Type 'make'. =A0Run the
> > result to evaluate. =A0ALT-TAB and edit the appropriate file. =A0Etc.
>
> Isn't it easier to just hit a single button marked "build" ?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Al

As long as this is all you have to do, yes. Then when things don't
work as expected you will have to call the experts...

 Like I suggested earlier, one does not need to bother with
"programming" menus if one has an issue with typing a few keys.

 One can just use the remote control of a plain TV set instead.

 Using an editor in a few windows, a debugger in another, and
the debugged application in yet another etc., while being
blessed with the ability to write scripts and utilities as needed,
(I refer to DPS, which is what I use, but this probably applies to
unix users as well) - is a whole universe to which todays IDE users
have no access. Or if they have access they have no knowledge and
training to work with - which has the same effect, "call the expert",
years of wrestling with something doable in a couple of months.
 I see plenty of such posts lately, BTW...

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff               Transgalactic Instruments

http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 21:33:28 -0800 (PST), the renowned Al  Borowski
<al.borowski@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 4, 5:45 pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Shift to the appropriate directory.  Launch and use the editor.
>> Write and save the makefile.  Write the program.  Save.  ALT-TAB
>> normally transfers you to the other window.  Type 'make'.  Run the
>> result to evaluate.  ALT-TAB and edit the appropriate file.  Etc.
>
>Isn't it easier to just hit a single button marked "build" ?
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Al

It's certainly faster to hit <Ctrl-F10> 


Best regards, 
Spehro Pefhany
-- 
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

On Jan 4, 5:45 pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Shift to the appropriate directory.  Launch and use the editor.
> Write and save the makefile.  Write the program.  Save.  ALT-TAB
> normally transfers you to the other window.  Type 'make'.  Run the
> result to evaluate.  ALT-TAB and edit the appropriate file.  Etc.

Isn't it easier to just hit a single button marked "build" ?


Cheers,

Al

I can't seem to find the documents I downloaded last month but from
what I can remember I decided it wasn't up to our requirements for an
upcoming project. At this point the AVR32 family seems optimal for our
uses.

Sorry I can't remember any details, I must be getting old :)

Didi wrote:
>> ...
>> Well... I also just got a PicKit2 and this sucker's driver installer
>> wanted w2k SP4 (i'm somewhere in SP3).
>> fortunately, this idiot just looks at the.... InternetExplorer version !
>> ...
> 
> Microsofts dominance has never been just about them making money.
> They would have never been allowed to be where they are now if that were
> so. They are all about the public having access only to controlled
> "computers" (some might prefer the phrase "computerised TV sets").
> 
> If someone wants to sell me a chip which comes only with a wintel
> system attached to it to be usable, well, he fails. There still are
> other viable options.

I have embraced Linux for a lot of good reasons.
Well, it's a price that i pay from time to time :-(
I have some long term plans to get out of this whole mess
but there is no way to avoid all proprietary things, at
least in the beginning.

> Microchip going MIPS will make it a lot more difficult to those
> "other viable options", of course - this core choice puts
> Microchip out of the "automatically discarded" MCU manufacturer group.
> It will depend on how many people will be willing to give up some
> of their toolchains to surrender to what they are allowed to
> have and use under Vista, hopefully I will not be the only one
> not needing that to do development work...

I'm not a specialist, but I think that you have an interesting
point here, that i will try to examine more closely.

Thank you for your opinion,

> Dimiter
YG

CBFalconer wrote:

> Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>>CBFalconer wrote:
>>
>>>Why in heavens name do people want an IDE?  One window in which to
>>>run the editor, another in which to run make and the test runs, add
>>>others as needed.  All free, all controllable.
>>
>>I used to be a fan of MultiEdit for many years. But finally I came to
>>the understanding that a reasonable IDE is the right way to do things.
>>
>>There are two main arguments:
>>
>>1. It is so nice when you can get everything to work in 10 minutes
>>without the need to read through the tons of documentation and
>>reconfiguring everything everywhere.
>>
>>2. When everybody is forced to the same development environment, it
>>simplifies the coordination.
> 
> 
> What has MultiEdit got to do with it?

<Whatever Editor> + make + command line tools == IDE of your own.
Why IDE of your own if there is an IDE already?

> Shift to the appropriate directory.  Launch and use the editor. 
> Write and save the makefile.  Write the program.  Save.  ALT-TAB
> normally transfers you to the other window.  Type 'make'.  Run the
> result to evaluate.

It is handy to create the shortcuts in the editor for the common 
operations like "make". But this is basically IDE make it yourself. 
Wouldn't it be easier to get used to the 'native' IDE?

> Note that the actual compiler (or assembler) and languages only
> affect the make file.

So in the addition to the crazy enough syntax of make, you have to learn 
every detail about compiler, linker, etc.

> Use of VI(m) and/or Emacs can make editor use consistent across
> systems if you like, although I prefer other editors.

Well. It has to do with how stiff you are in your habbits vs how lazy 
you are to learn anything new :)


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com