On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 06:18:18PM -0400, John Ferrell wrote:
> Differences of opinion!

John,

It's the same difference of opinion that we've all had for the last 2 to 3
years. Of course there's nothing wrong with that difference.

> I think simpler is better to start with. After blink a Led on the '84, the 
> student finds out it will work with 16f628.


But managing real useful projects generally requires composition. It adds
another level of complexity.

It simply should be explained from the beginning. Something like:

"Generally there is more than one way to handle a task. PIC chips offer a 
variety of peripherals to handle tasks such a analog to digital conversion,
timing, serial interfaces, and the like. While it's possible to perform
these activities in software, the management of multiple tasks becomes very
difficult. The use of periperal hardware simplifies such management because
they can operate autonomously. In short it's set and forget.

So the structure of these lessons will focus on using the hardware in real
world examples. Then software approaches will be examined."

Something like that.

> 3 chips are plenty to start with, it isn't a big investment.

And for a hobbyist even if the part costs a bit more.

> The resources of the 18F chips make me think of them as a minicomputer 
> rather than a micro.

18F parts are certainly not anything minicomputer like. If you've ever built
a board like a 68020, where you have to throw in RAM, EPROM, address decoding, 
and separate periperals, you'd certainly wouldn't think of the 18F as
anything minicomputer like.

The fact of the matter is that the 18F architecture simplifies stuff because
it lessens issues with banking.

BAJ
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist