On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 08:05:56AM -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> 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.

All are commodity components. You can get them from literally thousands
of vendors in a variety of ways and cost options.

> 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.

While a PIC is single source, it too is virtually a commodity component
because it too is obtainable from a long list of sources.

> 
> 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?

It has always been personal with me on this subject Olin. PIC programmers
are not real important in my world view. As such they need to be cheap and
commodity. You simply cannot pick one up off the shelf. My Trivial programmer
has always been doable with commodity components available from lots of
vendors including the local Radio Shack until very recently. So factors
such as quick to build and commodity components are important to me.

>  Like most things, you might be able to build one yourself, but you
> can also probably buy one that works cheaply enough.

Not off the shelf. And each of the other items that you listed above are
easily purchased off the shelf.

>  I don't see why the
> PIC programmer is being singled out and treated differently that your other
> tools,

It's not a commodity item and it's not important in my development cycle.

> 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.

I agree. That's one reason why I explain my view on it. It's certainly not
for everyone. However, just because it's a niche position doesn't mean that
it's a position that should be vacated. And with the gradual elimination
of parallel and serial ports towards USB, it's a position that would have
to be vacated.

>  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.

True. Actually it's one of the reasons I use wire wrap! ;-)

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