Byron A Jeff wrote:
> I started this thread. Cheap isn't the sole goal. Part of it is to
> maintain some measure of control of the hardware. If one cannot build
> any type of device that can be directly controlled by the user, then
> that user is now dependent for others to supply hardware for them.

I just don't get this.  You buy a PC and are dependent on someone building
the motherboard, programming the bios, etc.  You probably wouldn't consider
building your own soldering iron, and you don't think twice about being
dependent on the manufacturer to program the PIC inside to regulate the
temperature.

Think of a PIC programmer as any other tool.  It connects to a PC on one
side and a PIC on the other.  Why does it matter whether the part inbetween
uses only passive parts, a PIC, or relays to get the job done as long as it
works?  Like most things, you might be able to build one yourself, but you
can also probably buy one that works cheaply enough.  I don't see why the
PIC programmer is being singled out and treated differently that your other
tools, other than it seems you personally feel you know something about PICs
and therefore just don't like the idea of having someone else take care of
that part for you.  That's certainly your call, but everyone is going to see
this tradeoff differently.  What you are asking for is no different from
plans for a soldering iron that can be built without requiring a soldering
iron.  Perhaps possible, but silly by many people's standards.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist