"C" source code for I2C slave PIC16F81x

Bob Stephens said
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:30:30 -0800, Richard Henry wrote:
> 
> >> At any rate, I consider the ability to handle assembly language
> >> essential in exactly 98.375% of embedded applications. :-)
> 
> I used to feel that way, but these days I'd say that at least 98.375% of my
> embedded work is handled entirely in C - with occaisional inline assembler
> hacks.

Same here.   Things change with time.


Casey

Bob Stephens <stephensyomamadigital@earthlink.net> wrote:

> >> At any rate, I consider the ability to handle assembly language
> >> essential in exactly 98.375% of embedded applications. :-)

> I used to feel that way, but these days I'd say that at least 98.375% of my
> embedded work is handled entirely in C - with occaisional inline assembler
> hacks.

You didn't get all the fine-print of the quoted statement.  Note that
it says "ability to handle" assembly language, there, not "actually
write the entire thing in it".  How would you get your occasional
inline assembly hacks done, without the ability to handle assembly
language?

-- 
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker@physik.rwth-aachen.de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.

On 17 Feb 2005 21:35:48 GMT, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> Bob Stephens <stephensyomamadigital@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>>>> At any rate, I consider the ability to handle assembly language
>>>> essential in exactly 98.375% of embedded applications. :-)
> 
>> I used to feel that way, but these days I'd say that at least 98.375% of my
>> embedded work is handled entirely in C - with occaisional inline assembler
>> hacks.
> 
> You didn't get all the fine-print of the quoted statement.  Note that
> it says "ability to handle" assembly language, there, not "actually
> write the entire thing in it".  How would you get your occasional
> inline assembly hacks done, without the ability to handle assembly
> language?

agreed.

"Casey" <cclremovethispart@cox.net> wrote in message
news:j28Rd.85382$B95.43017@lakeread02...
> Bob Stephens said
> > On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:30:30 -0800, Richard Henry wrote:
> >
> > >> At any rate, I consider the ability to handle assembly language
> > >> essential in exactly 98.375% of embedded applications. :-)
> >
> > I used to feel that way, but these days I'd say that at least 98.375% of
my
> > embedded work is handled entirely in C - with occaisional inline
assembler
> > hacks.
>
> Same here.   Things change with time.
>

So to be safe, 2% of the members of your coding staff should be familiar
with assembler.

With multiple developers, you actually can do okay if some members only
know C.

Rufus

CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes:
> Is it?  Let's just take the 15 year old C90 standard.  Can it build
> an object of 32767 byte size?

Is that required by the standard?

I've got plenty of useful C programs that never need to deal with
more than 4KB of data.

> Can it do long arithmetic (32 bit minimum).
> Can it do int arithmetic (16 bit minimum).

Yes to both.

> PIC assembly is so simple that anyone should be able to pick it up
> in a few days.  This doesn't mean they will be facile in it.

Agreed on both points.

Eric