Katinka,

 Very well said.  This is basically what I've been saying.  I agree 100%.
 Only I'm working with PIC's and not the AVR varieties.

                                               Regards,

                                                 Jim




> On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:47, you wrote:
>>  All,
>>
>>  Everyone brings up some good points and I understand what is being
>>  said. But I still maintain that HLL's for PIC's isn't necessarily a
>>  saving grace.   I might bring out my HLL's and try them again, but I
>>  really do believe I'll go back to assembler.   Maybe I'm a glutton
>>  for punishment, I don't know.  But I feel more comfortable with
>>  assembler.  I like taking care of the details.   But I'll try the
>>  other once more and see.
>>
>>  Just so you all know, most of the applications I write are relatively
>>  small.   A couple hundred lines at most.  So my perspective for using
>>  assembler isn't the same as some of you all that write several
>>  hundred to a few thousand lines of code.
>>
>>  Thanks to all for the discussion.
>>
>>
>>                                                   Regards,
>>
>>                                                     Jim
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have read this discussion with interest, and I feel I must make a few
> comments, I routinely write code in the AVR's which are 10's of K in
> assembler, I have routines for most of the common used peripherals. I
> have not found a use for a C compiler yet, and probably never will, I
> can do anything a C compiler can, usually smaller code and faster. I
> also know what the AVR is doing 100% of the time.
>
> I disagree about assembler being ineficent in ram usage. when I write a
> routine (call it a subroutine, module whatever) I use set a set
> template, I know I can trash certain registers and ram etc. I make all
> my subroutines work to this idea, If I only need 1 or  2 bytes either
> in or out the routine I use registers, if I need more I use a ram /
> EEprom (due to some AVR's having no onboard ram (Tiny 15 only has 64
> bytes of EEprom and 32 registers).
>
> I think it is all about the programmers thinking. IF assembler is coded
> right, and well commented, you should never have a problem working
> through your own code ( I recently revised some code I wrote in 1990
> and I still know how it works though generous comments, and I do not
> mean just one liners I mean if you have a sub routine, give it a
> comment header, describe its function, the way to call it, what it
> expects in what register, what it returns, what it destroys, I even
> cont the cycles and bytes and list them so I know without spending time
> what it does when I come back later.
>
> All in all, I can see only one compelling reason to use a HLL, and that
> is portability accross platforms. But as I generally use the AVR (and
> have convinced most customers to move to the AVR) I doubt cross
> platform compatability worries me.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kat.
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
> K.A.Q. Electronics
> Software and Electronic Engineering
> Perth, Western Australia
> Phone +61 (0) 419 923 731
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
> ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.