Using C to program the 8051 family

Grant Edwards said...
> In article <20040101200157.15398.00002261@mb-m04.aol.com>, CBarn24050 wrote:
> 
> > Hi, I would think again, switching to another language won't
> > make your problems dissapear you just get some new ones. If C
> > is the right chioce for your project then the 8051 is allmost
> > certainly not the right processor.
> 
> Why do you say that?  A _lot_ of people (including some I know)
> have done an awful lot of 8051 projects in C.  They seem quite
> happy with the results.

I've done quite a few 8051 projects in C and those products were 
quite well received and very cost-effective.


Casey

Hi, I have yet to see a project written in C where the 8051 was the best choice
on either performance or price. C is to the 8051 what windows is to a pentium.
Of course is your poduct doesn't need much performance then allmost anything
would do.

cbarn24050@aol.com (CBarn24050) wrote in
news:20040102043821.04155.00002315@mb-m29.aol.com: 

> Hi, I have yet to see a project written in C where the 8051 was the best
> choice on either performance or price. C is to the 8051 what windows is
> to a pentium. Of course is your poduct doesn't need much performance
> then allmost anything would do.

I have yet to see one that wasn't. What kind of statement is that you are
making? The 8051 is dog-simple to program, supplied by an unbelievable
array of companies, has *excellent* C compilers available, wonderful
peripheral choices, the core can be placed into an FPGA for SoC designs,
Cygnal has JTAG debuggable version that run 12x the clock efficiency of
the original 8051, you can use off-chip CODE and XDATA space if needed,
fast interrupt context switching using register banks, etc. etc. 

-- 
- Mark ->
--

> on either performance or price. C is to the 8051 what windows is to a pentium.

I guess you belong to the "Real Programmers use COPY CON PROGRAM.EXE"
school of programming?

The choice between C and assembly isn't anything like as simple as you
make out, and "performance" is measured in different ways. For almost
any nontrivial piece of code where you're not actually down to the
cycle-counting level of time criticality, the [potential] portability
and [potential] productivity gains of using C are a strong argument
against assembler - even in 8-bit platforms.

In article <20040101200157.15398.00002261@mb-m04.aol.com>, CBarn24050
<cbarn24050@aol.com> writes
>Hi, I would think again, switching to another language won't make your problems
>dissapear you just get some new ones. If C is the right chioce for your project
>then the 8051 is allmost certainly not the right processor.

Are you sure you are in the right NG?  This one is embedded...

I think only 5% of 8051 programmers still use assembler only.
 
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England    /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org       www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Mark A. Odell wrote:

> cbarn24050@aol.com (CBarn24050) wrote in
> news:20040102043821.04155.00002315@mb-m29.aol.com:
> 
>> Hi, I have yet to see a project written in C where the 8051 was the best
>> choice on either performance or price. C is to the 8051 what windows is
>> to a pentium. Of course is your poduct doesn't need much performance
>> then allmost anything would do.
> 
> I have yet to see one that wasn't. What kind of statement is that you are
> making? The 8051 is dog-simple to program, supplied by an unbelievable
> array of companies, has *excellent* C compilers available, wonderful
> peripheral choices, the core can be placed into an FPGA for SoC designs,
> Cygnal has JTAG debuggable version that run 12x the clock efficiency of
> the original 8051, you can use off-chip CODE and XDATA space if needed,
> fast interrupt context switching using register banks, etc. etc.
> 

He is beginning to sound like a troll to me.

Ian

"CBarn24050" <cbarn24050@aol.com> pontificated in message
news:20040102043821.04155.00002315@mb-m29.aol.com...
> Hi, I have yet to see a project written in C where the 8051 was the best
choice
> on either performance or price. C is to the 8051 what windows is to a
pentium.
> Of course is your poduct doesn't need much performance then allmost
anything
> would do.

It seems to me you have never developed any projects using the 8051 and C
language, or just aren't very good at it.

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 16:25:03 +0000, Chris Hills wrote:

> In article <20040101200157.15398.00002261@mb-m04.aol.com>, CBarn24050
> <cbarn24050@aol.com> writes
>>Hi, I would think again, switching to another language won't make your problems
>>dissapear you just get some new ones. If C is the right chioce for your project
>>then the 8051 is allmost certainly not the right processor.

I don't know if the rest of the original post made any sense, but this
statement on its own is ridiculous.

Bob

Hi, I did once try with the 2500 compiler but it was hopeless, once I went back
to assembler it all worked out fine.

Hi Bob, can you actually justify that remark? Got any actual numbers from real
applications?