Jim Tellier wrote: > Olin, > I'm sending this privately to keep the noise out of the PICLIST forum, > out of respect for others. Your responses to my recent post (see end > of this message) are WAY out of line, especially considering that > others replied to it in a constructive and helpful manner without the > need for being abusive and condescending. So, I don't follow your > preferred coding or commenting style... so what?!?!? It's six crummy > lines of code that you damn well understand - you even SAY SO in a > taunting manner! Your assumption that I've not attempted to solve > this problem myself is outrageous (and patently wrong, I'll have you > know - I've spent a LOT of time with this problem before asking this > group for a clue.. And, to respect everyone's time, I've focused on the > handful of lines of code out of the 1000 or so that I *could* have > posted for "review"). > As for your comment about "posting...without shame": this is the height > of arrogance, IMHO. I'm fed up with your arrogant, condescending and > caustic waste of others' time! This reply to me was > absolutely a prime example of "waste of bandwidth" , and NOT just that > of the piclist server! It is a tribute to rest of the people in this > group that they can productively and peacefully coexist despite your > crappy attitude. > If I were your employer, and found that your were behaving in this > manner in a public forum, you would be fired on the spot for maligning > the company image. > > Now, I'm going to act against my better judgement and actually respond > to your comments. Why? because I want you to know that you are, in > fact, wrong in your assessments. > > ------------------------------------------------------ > I wrote: >> B1_COUNT equ 0xA0 >> B1_ARRAY equ 0xA0 >> B1_OTHERDATA equ 0xC3 >> B1_MOREDATA equ 0xC4 > > you wrote >> Manually allocating RAM is a bad idea. Your B1_xxx symbols are just >> integer values, and none of the RAM is reserved for anything. Other >> symbols could be defined with those same addresses and you'd get no >> error >> or warning messages. > and the later exchange: > I wrote: >> Yes, in fact, the B1_xxxx equates are absolute address allocations. >> There's good reason for this, > You wrote: > Oh? What is it? I've seen this done usually because someone is too > lazy > to use the linker or even CBLOCK, not a very good programmer, copied > some > badly written example (unfortunately some of these come directly from > Microchip) verbatim, etc. However, none of these are *good* reasons. > > First, as I believe I've pointed out earlier in this forum, I have 30+ > years of S/W development experience. Do you truly believe that I would > blindly, unintentionally write absolute mode code without good reason? > Do you think that I would be so sloppy or nonchalant to request help > from this group if I hadn't already reviewed the code to a significant > degree and ruled out the possible error of multiple symbols sharing an > address? Since I don't know you, yes, that is the first assumption. That is because unfortunately this is the case more often than not. > If you really think that, you're assuming an awful lot about > the lowest-common-denominator of people's skills. It offends me, > period. The assumption is often valid, and your post did nothing to indicate otherwise. Get over it. > I don't participate in this list to be offended, remember: Which ones do you participate in to be offended then? ;-) > it's purpose is to HELP and BE HELPED. And if you think I would claim > that any of the lame reasons you rattle off above, for justifying the > use of absolute addressing, you're simply delusional to the point of > grandeur. > My reasons for using absolute addressing were not relevant to the > question that I posed, Often the true cause of a problem is quite different from what someone posting a question thinks it is. After all, they have a problem they were unable to solve. Obviously some erroneous thinking got them there. Examining fundamental assumptions and methods is valid and often useful. > and in fact those reasons are proprietary to my > design, so I can't (and won't) divulge my architecture. I continue to be skeptical that absolute mode is necessary. I've heard such statments before and can usually show how the same thing can be achieved in relocatable mode. Many people here seem to be afraid of the linker or don't really understand how the details work and how they can be used to advantage. > I'd suggest > you get a good book on Operating System design, and read the technique > descriptions associated with paging systems for some insight. I've written an operating system and am familiar with virtual memory and paging. I don't see how this is relevant unless you care to be more specific. > You wrote: >> If you want help from others, you should first take the steps within >> your >> power to solve the problem yourself. It's rather dissappointing to see >> someone ask for help with undocumented absolute mode code that manually >> assigns variables to specific addresses, especially after the many many >> discussions about this on the list. Such irresponsible code is just >> asking for problems, and doesn't deserve help. > > and: >> By the way I think I know what your problem is (hard to tell since >> there >> are no comments to show what it's *supposed* to do), and it's directly >> related to a bad coding practice. Clean up your act and you'll >> probably >> find the problem yourself, or at least you can then post your code here >> without shame. > > It is arrogance in the extreme if you think I haven't spent time trying > to solve my own problems before asking for help. I'm sure you have, but the point was there are still things you can be expected to do for yourself, like proper documentation. The advantages of that have been discussed many times, so I won't reiterate. > And to say that you > know what the problem is without offering any information runs counter > to the intent of this group list. First, I said I only *think* I know what the problem is since the intent of the code was truly unclear. I wanted you to document your code, after which I thought there was a reasonable chance you would find the problem yourself. My telling you outright would not have taught that important lesson that commenting isn't a waste of time and helps find bugs. It seems people need to experience it to believe it. > It is a total waste of time. > Whatever it is that motivates you to respond to valid questions in such > a caustic, abusive manner... well, I don't even give a damn what it is. > In a private communication with James Newton, on this very matter, he > expressed to me the attitude that "most people are willing to take the > good with the bad" and that you've done so much "good" for the group, > yada, yada, yada. That may very well be, but I believe your potential > for causing disruption (SUCH AS THE TIME I'M SPENDING WRITING THIS!!) That was your choice, actually. > far outweighs ANY useful comments you've had re: my questions, and many > others'. I've had enough of your nonsense, and as of now, you're > posts are forever blocked from my email client. Enjoy your reign as > King of Crap! > > Jim ***************************************************************** Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts (978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body