I did not mean to imply that any technique is better than any other. The nature of the Pic seems to be better served by unrestricted assembler. After it fits in the available program memory there is not a lot of incentive to refine the code further. After all, program memory is a different thing than data memory. John Ferrell http://DixieNC.US ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wouter van Ooijen" To: Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 3:49 PM Subject: Re: [PIC]: How come relocatable asm code seems so uncommon? > > I think that the MPLAB IDE is popular because it is free. > > Unfortunately, it > > does little to support structured programming. > > IMHO this is nonsense. Structured programming has little to do with > separate compilation. > > > It seems to me that most in > > the PIC world come from tha hardware side of the business and > > simply are not > > aware of the benefits of structured programming. > > I come from the software side, I can't imagine programming any other > way. Yet I prefer all-at-once compilation (I prefer compilers to using > assembley), so even in C I often use include-style libraries. Jal in all > this is (of course) by design the only way you can construct a program. > > Wouter van Ooijen > > -- ------------------------------------------- > Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl > consultancy, development, PICmicro products > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList > mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu