CBFalconer wrote:
> No idea.  Besides, I am now retired and inactive.  I have
> to limit myself to offering opinions, trying to correct
> top-posters, moving people to Linux, and such like.
> 

Worthy goals... I hope I get to retire ;-)

-- 
Michael N. Moran           (h) 770 516 7918
5009 Old Field Ct.         (c) 678 521 5460
Kennesaw, GA, USA 30144    http://mnmoran.org

"So often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains
  and we never even know we have the key."
"Already Gone" by Jack Tempchin (recorded by The Eagles)

The Beatles were wrong: 1 & 1 & 1 is 1

Moon Shine wrote:
> "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> Neil wrote:
>>> CBFalconer wrote:
>>>
>> ... snip ...
>>>
>>>> I also agree.  My experience is about 10 years old with a PIC16.  I
>>>> had only simple things to program, so I started with C.  Then I
>>>> found that the compilers were far from meeting the C standard.  So
>>>> far that I had to verify the translation of everything in detail.
>>>> The compiler vendor was co-operative, in that I could call him up
>>>> and report bugs, and he went to work to remove them.  The problem
>>>> was that they then showed up elsewhere.  The work wasn't wasted,
>>>> though, because I had become thoroughly familiar with the
>>>> instruction set and could now do sane assembly programming.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, the bugs were not just the absence of recursive functions,
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>> I have use the Hi-Tech Compiler for PIC16 and 18 and did not have
>>> many issues with the compiler. ( I have heard that the new updated
>>> version has issues, like most updates)   The PIC is not a powerful
>>> chip.  But one should be aware of that when choosing it.
>>
>> As I said, that was 10 years ago.  The compiler was brand new.  I'm
>> sure things have improved dramatically since then.
> 
> He was probably using Switchcraft C compiler. Arrg!

No idea.  Besides, I am now retired and inactive.  I have to limit
myself to offering opinions, trying to correct top-posters, moving
people to Linux, and such like.

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



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

Thanks everyone for all the suggestions, I'm going to explore a few of
these leads which you have given me.  The TI MSP430F1611 is sounding
pretty interesting at this point.  much appreciate the help.

J.

CBFalconer wrote:
> Neil wrote:
>> CBFalconer wrote:
>>
> ... snip ...
>>> I also agree.  My experience is about 10 years old with a PIC16.  I
>>> had only simple things to program, so I started with C.  Then I
>>> found that the compilers were far from meeting the C standard.  So
>>> far that I had to verify the translation of everything in detail.
>>> The compiler vendor was co-operative, in that I could call him up
>>> and report bugs, and he went to work to remove them.  The problem
>>> was that they then showed up elsewhere.  The work wasn't wasted,
>>> though, because I had become thoroughly familiar with the
>>> instruction set and could now do sane assembly programming.
>>>
>>> BTW, the bugs were not just the absence of recursive functions,
>>> etc.
>> I have use the Hi-Tech Compiler for PIC16 and 18 and did not have
>> many issues with the compiler. ( I have heard that the new updated
>> version has issues, like most updates)   The PIC is not a powerful
>> chip.  But one should be aware of that when choosing it.
> 
> As I said, that was 10 years ago.  The compiler was brand new.  I'm
> sure things have improved dramatically since then.
> 
Should you wish to try it again they have a Lite Version.

"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:47EBFA3A.AB1A5B73@yahoo.com...
> Neil wrote:
>> CBFalconer wrote:
>>
> ... snip ...
>>
>>> I also agree.  My experience is about 10 years old with a PIC16.  I
>>> had only simple things to program, so I started with C.  Then I
>>> found that the compilers were far from meeting the C standard.  So
>>> far that I had to verify the translation of everything in detail.
>>> The compiler vendor was co-operative, in that I could call him up
>>> and report bugs, and he went to work to remove them.  The problem
>>> was that they then showed up elsewhere.  The work wasn't wasted,
>>> though, because I had become thoroughly familiar with the
>>> instruction set and could now do sane assembly programming.
>>>
>>> BTW, the bugs were not just the absence of recursive functions,
>>> etc.
>>
>> I have use the Hi-Tech Compiler for PIC16 and 18 and did not have
>> many issues with the compiler. ( I have heard that the new updated
>> version has issues, like most updates)   The PIC is not a powerful
>> chip.  But one should be aware of that when choosing it.
>
> As I said, that was 10 years ago.  The compiler was brand new.  I'm
> sure things have improved dramatically since then.

He was probably using Switchcraft C compiler. Arrg!

Neil wrote:
> CBFalconer wrote:
>
... snip ...
>
>> I also agree.  My experience is about 10 years old with a PIC16.  I
>> had only simple things to program, so I started with C.  Then I
>> found that the compilers were far from meeting the C standard.  So
>> far that I had to verify the translation of everything in detail.
>> The compiler vendor was co-operative, in that I could call him up
>> and report bugs, and he went to work to remove them.  The problem
>> was that they then showed up elsewhere.  The work wasn't wasted,
>> though, because I had become thoroughly familiar with the
>> instruction set and could now do sane assembly programming.
>>
>> BTW, the bugs were not just the absence of recursive functions,
>> etc.
> 
> I have use the Hi-Tech Compiler for PIC16 and 18 and did not have
> many issues with the compiler. ( I have heard that the new updated
> version has issues, like most updates)   The PIC is not a powerful
> chip.  But one should be aware of that when choosing it.

As I said, that was 10 years ago.  The compiler was brand new.  I'm
sure things have improved dramatically since then.

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



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

CBFalconer wrote:
> Keith M wrote:
>> Alex Colvin wrote:
>>
>>> program in assembler. with a small instruction set, it's not hard.
>>> Look at the data sheets to get a sense of PIC programming.
>> Alex is 100% right.  I started off a couple years ago looking to
>> program a PIC in C.  It's a waste of time.  First off, there are
>> limited free/cheap compilers, and even the commercial ones look
>> like they were designed for Windows 95.  I ended up with a
>> Parallax uC because it was much faster and had affordable
>> programmers/debuggers.  Parallax makes a SX/B (aka basic) which
>> is actually compiled/converted line by line into assembly. 
>> It's pretty decent.
>>
>> Many uC applications are timing sensitive, and a high level
>> language like C just gets in the way.  Too much abstraction and
>> you don't know what's going on at the hardware level.  You even
>> have to get underneath the assembly (and look at machine code)
>> sometimes to get a better idea of what's happening.
> 
> I also agree.  My experience is about 10 years old with a PIC16.  I
> had only simple things to program, so I started with C.  Then I
> found that the compilers were far from meeting the C standard.  So
> far that I had to verify the translation of everything in detail. 
> The compiler vendor was co-operative, in that I could call him up
> and report bugs, and he went to work to remove them.  The problem
> was that they then showed up elsewhere.  The work wasn't wasted,
> though, because I had become thoroughly familiar with the
> instruction set and could now do sane assembly programming.
> 
> BTW, the bugs were not just the absence of recursive functions,
> etc.
> 

I have use the Hi-Tech Compiler for PIC16 and 18 and did not have many 
issues with the compiler. ( I have heard that the new updated version 
has issues, like most updates)   The PIC is not a powerful chip.  But 
one should be aware of that when choosing it.

Andrew Smallshaw wrote:
> On 2008-03-26, panfilero <panfilero@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm in need of a small microcontroller that has ADC and DAC
>> capabilities and PWM also but not much of anything else.... most the
>> microcontroller's I've found while trying to search for these criteria
>> are a little overkill...... an 8 bit or 16 bit would probally be fine,
>> low power would be great but ADC and DAC are the main things I'm
>> looking for... I've thought about a PIC but I've never used one of
>> those.... and hear that they are not programmable in C and have a
>> small instruction set....  any suggestions?
> 
> That wish list strongly suggests an MSP430 to me.  Have a look at
> http://focus.ti.com/lit/ml/slab034m/slab034m.pdf for a brief outline
> of the range.  Not all of the units have DACs so isolate those
> before deciding which if any would best suit your needs.
> 
> You're not quite right that PICs don't support C.  As Tim Wescott
> has already pointed out, it's true that the low end PIC10/12/16s
> are not well optimised for C but compilers do exist and people who
> have used them report good results (I've only ever used assembly
> for those devices).  The 'higher' numbered PIC17/18/24 devices are
> much more suited to C.
> 

TI also has 8052 based micros with A/D and D/A.  You did not say how 
many bits you need.
The fact that the PIC ( and 8052) Architecture is a poor fit for C is 
the compiler writer problem not yours.  I have used both and found them 
to be fine.

"panfilero" <panfilero@gmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:94232517-b493-4d95-9331-b863f3a60e68@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
>
> I'm in need of a small microcontroller that has ADC and DAC
> capabilities and PWM also but not much of anything else.... most the
> microcontroller's I've found while trying to search for these criteria
> are a little overkill...... an 8 bit or 16 bit would probally be fine,
> low power would be great but ADC and DAC are the main things I'm
> looking for... I've thought about a PIC but I've never used one of
> those.... and hear that they are not programmable in C and have a
> small instruction set....  any suggestions?
>
> thanks
> J.

The new XMEGA AVRs have plenty of 2 Megasample 12 bit ADC channels
and a few 1 Megasample DACs integrated. Plenty of PWMs
and runs up to 32 MIPS (AVR MIPS that is).

Will have very good power consumption and power down currents
are in the uA range.

While the chips available now are in a 100 pin package, you can
create a design with a 44 pin padring inside, and move to the 44 pin
package when it becomes available.
The code should be the same, if the promises hold.

No core change over the earlier AVRs, so with the right
I/O headers, any AVR compiler should do.

-- 
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
This is intended to be my personal opinion which may,
or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB

Keith M wrote:
> Alex Colvin wrote:
> 
>> program in assembler. with a small instruction set, it's not hard.
>> Look at the data sheets to get a sense of PIC programming.
> 
> Alex is 100% right.  I started off a couple years ago looking to
> program a PIC in C.  It's a waste of time.  First off, there are
> limited free/cheap compilers, and even the commercial ones look
> like they were designed for Windows 95.  I ended up with a
> Parallax uC because it was much faster and had affordable
> programmers/debuggers.  Parallax makes a SX/B (aka basic) which
> is actually compiled/converted line by line into assembly. 
> It's pretty decent.
> 
> Many uC applications are timing sensitive, and a high level
> language like C just gets in the way.  Too much abstraction and
> you don't know what's going on at the hardware level.  You even
> have to get underneath the assembly (and look at machine code)
> sometimes to get a better idea of what's happening.

I also agree.  My experience is about 10 years old with a PIC16.  I
had only simple things to program, so I started with C.  Then I
found that the compilers were far from meeting the C standard.  So
far that I had to verify the translation of everything in detail. 
The compiler vendor was co-operative, in that I could call him up
and report bugs, and he went to work to remove them.  The problem
was that they then showed up elsewhere.  The work wasn't wasted,
though, because I had become thoroughly familiar with the
instruction set and could now do sane assembly programming.

BTW, the bugs were not just the absence of recursive functions,
etc.

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



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