can anyone recommend me a microcontroller

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.

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" <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!

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.

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.

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

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