BAJ,

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:07:04 -0400, Byron A Jeff wrote:

> > A big argument for newbies is the amount of webinfo for a chip. Sadly,
> > the 16x84 still rules in this aspect.
> 
> It's very sad.

And it's continuing!  Over here, the current edition of Everyday Practical Electronics magazine has published 
a "Multicore cable tester" project, that specifies a 16F84!  The standard of coding is very unsophisticated 
(at least there's decent commenting) - it doesn't use any Include files, so all the port addresses etc. are 
hard-coded.  It even leaves program locations 0 to 4 unprogrammed, which doesn't sound safe to me.  The whole 
thing would have been reasonable five years ago, but there's no excuse for it being published now.  It's not 
even as if any particular features are being used - it would be trivial to put it into a 16F627/8 or pretty 
much any other 18-pin PIC.

I obviously can't reproduce the code here for copyright reasons, but anyone wanting to have a look will find 
it here:  ftp://ftp.epemag.wimborne.co.uk/pub/PICS/Cable_Tester/Multicore%20Cable%20Tester%20V2.6.zip  or 
follow the links from  http://www.epemag.wimborne.co.uk

I feel a "Letter to the Editor" coming on!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


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