Olin Lathrop wrote:
>
> >         Unfortunately, MPASM can't deal with macros that aren't
> >         fixed-length.  Fortunately, however, Microchip now include a
> >         separate linker
>
> Everyone should be using the linker.  Talking about absolute mode here is
> just a waste of bandwidth and does a disservice to newbies


SURELY that decision should be left to the
majority, and *maybe* that majority are still
using (and prefer) absolute mode?? ;o)

For the "control freaks" like myself there is
little alternative to absolute mode, how else
to you get the absolute maximum amount of code
into that 512 bytes of ROM? Many of my projects
use very carefully designed code blocks and tables
and need to have every word in the right spot to
get the speed and size...

I do understand the benefits of linked and
re-usable modules in LARGER projects where they
are very superior. But as the PIC size gets
smaller and development time becomes less critical
than PIC size, a point is reached where absolute
mode gives the BEST end result.

As a consultant it benefits you to develop code
very quickly using a "standard" larger PIC and
linked modules. But as a manufacturer it benefits
me to use the SMALLEST PIC possible even it takes
weeks of fiddly absolute coding to make it all fit.

Saying cars are better than motorcycles is a rather
closed minded attitude. Next you'll be saying talking
about 16F PICs is "doing newbies a disservice" as
they should be learining on 18F, heck why stop
there, they should be soldering Pentiums into their
led flasher and we can all throw our PICs away. <grin>
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads