On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 02:02:58 -0800, you wrote:

>Praise the Lord... Amen :)
>
>At 09:02 PM 3/2/01 +1100, you wrote:
>>Bob Ammerman wrote:
>> >
>> > Now I know why I do my PIC development in ASM!
>> >
>> > Bob Ammerman
>> > RAm Systems
>> > (contract development of high performance, high function, low-level
>> > software)
>>
>>
>>The more months I use PIC asm the more I find I am
>>using 5 asm instructions and 25 lines of comments,
>>such is the power of a few well placed asm
>>instructions. And i'm not a beginner to programming
>>either.:o)
>>
>>Can't see why anyone would use non-asm in a PIC?
>>Maybe for really large apps, but then why use a PIC?
Because they're cheap, available and familiar.

>>Other controllers are much better for larger apps.
Not if the app will fit a smaller one - ok it maybe easier to do some
things on bigger chips if you have that luxury, but component cost and
power consumption are almost always major issues.
>>Maybe my opinion will change but I still think PIC
>>C programming is a poor solution.
Horses for courses. It all depends on the application. For low-level
bit-bashing C is terrible and ASM is usually much quicker to write,
but doing lots of maths or complicated flow-control is a royal pain in
asm.=20
I use Asm unless there is a good reason to use C, and then often do
the twiddly bits in ASM. Fortunately most MCU C compilers allow bits
of ASM to be added very easily without having to mess with linkers
etc.=20
Now if only someone would do it the other way round and write an
assembler that allowed little bits of C to be included....!

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