K=FCbek Tony wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Dan Michaels wrote:
>
>>This example doesn't really help Peter Schulz's case very much.=20
>
>No, it was meant as an general statement concerning the use of GOTO's
>in C or asm ( thread started out as c-only but has since grown ).
>

I know, but as you say, the thread has drifted and drifted and=20
drifted.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D


>>
>>First, the code is written in assembler, and not C, and secondly,=20
>>"most" assembler code that I have seen looks like a spaghetti chef=20
>>wrote it anyway.=20
>>
>
>This does not need to be the case, there are no excuses for writing
>poorly written/documented code in C, Pascal, asm or whatever.
>Ofcource asm, as it is 'lower' level, IS harder to understand/follow
>particulary to thoose who do not practice it regulary. And
>have you ever amused yourself by looking at the generated output from
>an PIC c-compiler :-).
>The mentioned example is ( except it's fairly well documented ) as
>far as one could take this 'technique' i.e. at one extreme.
>

You are correct - you can write spaghetti/garbage code any number
of ways. Unfortunately, it is much easier to do if you relie on
GOTOs and jumps a lot. The smaller PICs with 2 stack levels beg
for this type of coding - I would never use one of these, myself,
if I could avoid it.=20

Luckily, the 2nd gen PICs have 8 stack levels, so you can use=20
a lot more subroutine calls, and produce much better structured=20
code.=20

Personally, I try to make the "overall structure" of my assembler=20
programs look "exactly" like they would look if I were coding in=20
C or other HLL. The difference is mainly in the syntax, not in
the structure. At least this is what I try to do. It is not=20
always the most efficient code, however.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D


>>If Peter took this sort of thing to his QA types, they would make=20
>>him go back and re-take CS101 - Pascal For Non-Programmers.
>>
>May I ask what is CS101 ( sorry I'm not native english so sometimes
>need time to catch up :) ) ComputerStudy101 ? ( and yes I know it's some
>kind of joke )
>

Yes, a joke. "Computer Science 101", used in this manner, is=20
generally meant to be taken as the "lowest-level" computer=20
course, given to totally naiive people. Like going back to=20
First Grade or Kindergarten [US terms].=20

best regards,
- dan michaels

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu