In article <927216hmj2d0ia2ka39vefa2trqnit0rdb@4ax.com>, jonk@infinitefactors.org says...> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:14:10 +0200, David Brown > <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: > > ><snip> > >Whenever someone starts looking at a new topic, they are "uninformed" by > >definition. Microchip targets this area very successfully. > > > >I have no facts or figures to back this up, > > I was going to ask, "How so?" to the first paragraph and then > read this. So I guess I can't ask that question, now. It's > seems now apocryphal and must simply be left there. > > >but I would expect that most > >PIC users used PICs as their first microcontroller. > > I certainly don't help you there. I have had long, long > experience with other micros before using PIC micros.. going > back to the MITS ALTAIR 8800 I built circa 1975. > > >Relatively few will > >have switched from other devices to PICs. > > Again, I guess I'm a data point of one against your point. > > Jon >Me too. I was a BIG Motorola/Freescale, Zilog, and Philips guy for ~15 years before switching most of our products over to different PIC variants, and have done lots and lots of new products using PICs. A good cross compiler can hide a lot of the nasty stuff, and the newer parts have fixed some of the more annoying gotcha's. I like the fact that they still make a lot of DIP parts, and they seem to always have a pin for pin compatible upwards migration path. Something Motorola couldn't seem to get their heads wrapped around. Jim
C18 Compiler again
Started by ●June 7, 2010
Reply by ●June 10, 20102010-06-10
Reply by ●June 10, 20102010-06-10
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:29:56 -0400, WangoTango <Asgard24@mindspring.com> wrote:>In article <927216hmj2d0ia2ka39vefa2trqnit0rdb@4ax.com>, >jonk@infinitefactors.org says... >> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:14:10 +0200, David Brown >> <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: >> >> ><snip> >> >Whenever someone starts looking at a new topic, they are "uninformed" by >> >definition. Microchip targets this area very successfully. >> > >> >I have no facts or figures to back this up, >> >> I was going to ask, "How so?" to the first paragraph and then >> read this. So I guess I can't ask that question, now. It's >> seems now apocryphal and must simply be left there. >> >> >but I would expect that most >> >PIC users used PICs as their first microcontroller. >> >> I certainly don't help you there. I have had long, long >> experience with other micros before using PIC micros.. going >> back to the MITS ALTAIR 8800 I built circa 1975. >> >> >Relatively few will >> >have switched from other devices to PICs. >> >> Again, I guess I'm a data point of one against your point. >> >> Jon >> >Me too. >I was a BIG Motorola/Freescale, Zilog, and Philips guy for ~15 years >before switching most of our products over to different PIC variants, >and have done lots and lots of new products using PICs. A good cross >compiler can hide a lot of the nasty stuff, and the newer parts have >fixed some of the more annoying gotcha's. I like the fact that they >still make a lot of DIP parts, and they seem to always have a pin for >pin compatible upwards migration path. Something Motorola couldn't seem >to get their heads wrapped around.They support their tools and parts nearly forever and are a "how high" jumper when asked to jump. They don't question or grill me about how many parts I will buy from them before getting in gear and helping out and never ever hassle me. They simply apply their shoulders to my problem and move me forward, each and every time, without question or bother. Hard to find that elsewhere. Jon
Reply by ●June 10, 20102010-06-10
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:29:56 -0400, WangoTango <Asgard24@mindspring.com> wrote:><snip> >and the newer parts have fixed some of the more annoying gotcha's. ><snip>That's either a point in favor or against Microchip, depending on your point of view. I like it, so I consider it "a good thing." Texas Instruments, for all I can tell when looking, _never_ fixes any silicon bugs. Microchip keeps a long laundry list of them and actually _works_ at fixing the important ones over time. To see that, look at A3 silicon errata for the PIC18F2525 part and then compare it with the B5 stepping's errata, for example. Then take a look at the MSP430F149, namely SLAZ017D, and see if they ever fixed anything even like the CPU4 bug, regardless of stepping. Jon
Reply by ●June 10, 20102010-06-10
David Brown wrote:> [ ... ] I would expect that most > PIC users used PICs as their first microcontroller. Relatively few will > have switched from other devices to PICs.Not necessarily. The shop I work with started with H64180, aka Z180. When they needed peripherals to be hung off the H64180, plus a little raw speed, they/we picked on PIC16 at the top clock rate. One wouldn't say they ever switched, though. The Z180s are still being used for the big part of the application, and PIC for the accessories. Latest development is with PIC32 (which aren't really PIC,) and Mini-ITX motherboards (which aren't really Z180.) And USB is replacing SPI. Mel.
Reply by ●June 11, 20102010-06-11
On 10/06/2010 19:12, Jon Kirwan wrote:> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:14:10 +0200, David Brown > <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: > >> <snip> >> Whenever someone starts looking at a new topic, they are "uninformed" by >> definition. Microchip targets this area very successfully. >> >> I have no facts or figures to back this up, > > I was going to ask, "How so?" to the first paragraph and then > read this. So I guess I can't ask that question, now. It's > seems now apocryphal and must simply be left there. >It /is/ apocryphal - it's just my impression based on people I've talked to and things I have read over the years. The posts here from experienced developers who actively moved to PICs are eroding that impression a little, but they don't actually contradict it. As you say, you are a data point against this theory, and so are others here, but most people in this group are experienced and informed developers - it's a biased sample. But it's all just a theory. If you don't agree, then that's fine. It's not as though we are arguing about facts, such as the best way to format C code :-)>> but I would expect that most >> PIC users used PICs as their first microcontroller. > > I certainly don't help you there. I have had long, long > experience with other micros before using PIC micros.. going > back to the MITS ALTAIR 8800 I built circa 1975. > >> Relatively few will >> have switched from other devices to PICs. > > Again, I guess I'm a data point of one against your point. > > Jon
Reply by ●June 11, 20102010-06-11
On 10/06/2010 20:29, WangoTango wrote:> In article<927216hmj2d0ia2ka39vefa2trqnit0rdb@4ax.com>, > jonk@infinitefactors.org says... >> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:14:10 +0200, David Brown >> <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: >> >>> <snip> >>> Whenever someone starts looking at a new topic, they are "uninformed" by >>> definition. Microchip targets this area very successfully. >>> >>> I have no facts or figures to back this up, >> >> I was going to ask, "How so?" to the first paragraph and then >> read this. So I guess I can't ask that question, now. It's >> seems now apocryphal and must simply be left there. >> >>> but I would expect that most >>> PIC users used PICs as their first microcontroller. >> >> I certainly don't help you there. I have had long, long >> experience with other micros before using PIC micros.. going >> back to the MITS ALTAIR 8800 I built circa 1975. >> >>> Relatively few will >>> have switched from other devices to PICs. >> >> Again, I guess I'm a data point of one against your point. >> >> Jon >> > Me too. > I was a BIG Motorola/Freescale, Zilog, and Philips guy for ~15 years > before switching most of our products over to different PIC variants, > and have done lots and lots of new products using PICs. A good cross > compiler can hide a lot of the nasty stuff, and the newer parts have > fixed some of the more annoying gotcha's. I like the fact that they > still make a lot of DIP parts, and they seem to always have a pin for > pin compatible upwards migration path. Something Motorola couldn't seem > to get their heads wrapped around. > > JimI've heard this "they make DIP package parts" as a reason for using PICs many times. To my mind, this re-enforces the impression that these devices are aimed at small and hobby developers (with an aim to getting a long term professional customer in the future). As a professional developer, I haven't had use for a DIP package microcontroller for over a decade, except for OTP devices. They are very rarely of use for serious prototyping or development - after all, none of the other components on a typical card are DIP any more, so you have no choice but to make up a proper card anyway. If you just want to try out some ideas, you use a ready-made evaluation card or development board. And if you really want a microcontroller in a DIP format for testing, there are endless varieties of ARMs and other microcontrollers mounted on a DIP-40 board package.
Reply by ●June 11, 20102010-06-11
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:24:01 +0200, David Brown wrote:><snip> >If you don't agree, then that's fine. It's >not as though we are arguing about facts, such as the best way to format >C code :-) ><snip>Hehe. Okay. Anyway, I guess it's just that I never see all that Microchip marketing (any more than I see all the other companies doing it) to "people with little or no experience of microcontrollers," as you wrote earlier. Not much different from the mix I see from other companies competing against Microchip's market, anyway. You'd mentioned web pages. Sure there are web pages for PIC and web pages for AVR and web pages for the BASIC Stamp, and Motorola, etc. People out there use stuff and where they are able they write about what they do and learn about. The companies themselves sometimes set up and fund the web server for user groups, too, from time to time (perhaps Atmel comes to mind, too?) You'd mentioned books, too, as though that is another place that Microchip also competes hard and maybe outcompetes. There are books written by authors who choose what they want. For example, just to provide a random encounter I just had buying a book last week, David Cook's Intermediate Robot Building book discusses at length the Atmel ATtiny84. He also does, at the very end in "Choosing a Microcontroller" subsection, talk about AVR 8 bit micros generally, the Parallax BASIC Stamp, with a one sentence nod to the PIC. That's not atypical, either. I certainly don't "feel" or "sense" any author-bias in book publishing related to Microchip. If anything, somewhat towards the opposite is probably the case if my book shelf of such books is an indication. If Microchip is "targeting this area very successfully" (re: ignorant beginners) as you say, it's not manifest to me. Atmel does at least as well, so far as I can tell, and probably better. I think their real strength, the one that actually is the telling reason for the profit dollars they make where others don't do nearly so well, is found elsewhere. As you say, that's just the view of one person who is already obviously an outlier data point just by the fact that I still read and sometimes post in a newsgroup. That all by itself makes me as rare as hens' teeth. Along with the rest of us anachronisms. ;) Jon
Reply by ●June 11, 20102010-06-11
In article <4c11e68f$0$4120$8404b019@news.wineasy.se>, david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com says...> On 10/06/2010 20:29, WangoTango wrote: > > In article<927216hmj2d0ia2ka39vefa2trqnit0rdb@4ax.com>, > > jonk@infinitefactors.org says... > >> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:14:10 +0200, David Brown > >> <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: > >> > >>> <snip> > >>> Whenever someone starts looking at a new topic, they are "uninformed" by > >>> definition. Microchip targets this area very successfully. > >>> > >>> I have no facts or figures to back this up, > >> > >> I was going to ask, "How so?" to the first paragraph and then > >> read this. So I guess I can't ask that question, now. It's > >> seems now apocryphal and must simply be left there. > >> > >>> but I would expect that most > >>> PIC users used PICs as their first microcontroller. > >> > >> I certainly don't help you there. I have had long, long > >> experience with other micros before using PIC micros.. going > >> back to the MITS ALTAIR 8800 I built circa 1975. > >> > >>> Relatively few will > >>> have switched from other devices to PICs. > >> > >> Again, I guess I'm a data point of one against your point. > >> > >> Jon > >> > > Me too. > > I was a BIG Motorola/Freescale, Zilog, and Philips guy for ~15 years > > before switching most of our products over to different PIC variants, > > and have done lots and lots of new products using PICs. A good cross > > compiler can hide a lot of the nasty stuff, and the newer parts have > > fixed some of the more annoying gotcha's. I like the fact that they > > still make a lot of DIP parts, and they seem to always have a pin for > > pin compatible upwards migration path. Something Motorola couldn't seem > > to get their heads wrapped around. > > > > Jim > > I've heard this "they make DIP package parts" as a reason for using PICs > many times. To my mind, this re-enforces the impression that these > devices are aimed at small and hobby developers (with an aim to getting > a long term professional customer in the future).Yep, that is a big draw for beginners, but we still use a lot of DIP packaged MCUs. Not a lot in the big scheme of things, but 100K+ per year, and of those 80% are PICs.> > As a professional developer, I haven't had use for a DIP package > microcontroller for over a decade, except for OTP devices. They are > very rarely of use for serious prototyping or development - after all, > none of the other components on a typical card are DIP any more, so you > have no choice but to make up a proper card anyway. If you just want to > try out some ideas, you use a ready-made evaluation card or development > board. And if you really want a microcontroller in a DIP format for > testing, there are endless varieties of ARMs and other microcontrollers > mounted on a DIP-40 board package.I guess this is one of those *depends* things. Why buy a surface mount part and then pay for the DIP adapter, when you could just buy the DIP part, but really, that is neither here nor there, I use the part that fits the job at hand and sometimes a DIP part is what I pick. We don't do anything that would qualify as anything NEAR bleeding edge, but it does have to work day in, and day out, for decades at a time and the simple fact is that the "old iron" guys have kind of abandoned me. In fact I have just finished up a job for a customer using a DIP PIC MCU, one of their Ethernet ICs in a DIP28 package and using a Halo FastJack with through hole mounting, with a shit load of other through hole parts. It is a very limited run, and I can just dip solder the 1000 or so pieces that the guy will need. It is what the customer wanted, and that is where the cheese comes from.
Reply by ●June 11, 20102010-06-11
David Brown wrote:> I have no facts or figures to back this up, but I would expect that most > PIC users used PICs as their first microcontroller. Relatively few will > have switched from other devices to PICs.Before PICs I worked on 68HC05, AVR, 8051. I first used PICs because of a good combination of price and size at the low end. I am now working with PIC18s that have a good price for the feature set and memory. There are some aspects of the architecture that force awkward code constructs with the chosen compiler, but have filled several niches well. -- Thad
