William Chops Westfield wrote:

> > As one of the people who added a PIC tag, I interpreted your
> original as being mostly about microchip's C30, and therefore
> definitely [PIC]  (

Well, gosh, I thought that I was not going to say anything else on this 
thread, but guess I kind of have to just say a few more words.  The 
original post referred to the C30 compiler, that is correct, but not in 
reference to PIC's.  It was strictly in reference to the relationship 
that the C30 compiler has to a true C compiler.  So based upon comments 
by different people, chief among them being James Newton, if I had it to 
do all over again I would have made it [EE], which is now where I think 
it should have gone

And by the way, I enjoyed the discussion.  The flaming was bearable, 
with only minor singes.  :-)  I stand corrected and realize that no one 
ever said the C30 compiler was a true C compiler, so my complaining 
about it was wrong.  (HOWEVER, just as a departing rant, let me say that 
there are, or have been, or will be, people who had a C course in 
college, get into doing PIC programming as a hobby thing, and assume 
that they are well prepared to start programming the little buggers 
since they know C.  I say "hobby thing" because while the beginning 
professionals might think that, supervisors know better).

John

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