Hi Larry, you wrote:

>I don't want to start a religious war, but here goes ...
>Why would one chose to use the Parallax assembler syntax as opposed to
>the Microchip one? Given that there are a pile of app notes on the
>Microchip Web site, and another pile of appnotes on the Parallax Web
>site, are their programs that will translate from one to tht other?
>I'm just getting started in the PIC world (I've programmed  lots in
>assembly languages ... IBM mainframe and PC ... so assemblers don't scare
>me). It seems to make sense to use the manufacturer's assembler, but
>there must be a good reason why the Parallax one exists.
>Any suggestions as to which way I should go?

 The Parallax asm. is more familiar to people that uses Intel chips so this
people could want to use it.
 The drawback is that the Parallax syntax hides the real behavior of the CPU and
you could waste memory and machine cicles if you don't know what exactly
generates Parallax.
 I preffer the macros, for example I have a macro library that's very similar
to the Parallax syntax and you can see, and modify, each macro. The only
advantage of the P asm. is the computation of branchs outside the current bank.

bye SET

********************************************************************************
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET) - salvador@inti.edu.ar
Work: INTI (National Institute of Industrial Technology) Sector: ICE
(Electronic Control & Instrumentation)
Post (Home): Curapaligue 2124 - Caseros (1678)- Buenos Aires - Argentina