On Wednesday, Nov 5, 2003, at 08:49 US/Pacific, Edward Gisske wrote:
>
> In another case, the product manager gave the decree that he needed the
> security of portability for the code in his product, therefore it must
> be in
> C. This product ran a couple of linear actuators in and out with a low
> end
> PIC. When it was explained to him that a 12C505 was not the best
> vehicle for
> C coding, he would have none of it. He now has his code in C and he is
> secure. It also cost him substantially more for a program that could
> have
> been done in a page or two of assembler written on a bar napkin...

Did it really cost more to do in C, or were you just annoyed?  I can
see him
having to pay twice - once to do it in C, and again to do it in
assembler when
the C code didn't fit.  But if the C code fit, then it fit and that
wasn't a
problem.  Trivial code written in C still seems to be pretty trivial...

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body