On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 08:36:06AM +0800, Chen Xiao Fan wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu 
> > [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On Behalf Of Bob Blick
> > 
> > 
> > I've done PIC development three different ways:
> > 
> > 3. Serial bootloader
> 
> > #2 [ICD] uses pins you really want to use for other things.
> 
> #3 also uses pins you want to use as well.

Really? On advantage of bootloaders is that you get to choose the
interface. You get to pick the pin(s) for the interface. For example
Wouter's WLoader defaulted to PortE2 on a 16F877. It's much more out
of the way than the RB6/RB7 combo demanded by the ICD interface.

[more snippage]

> As much as I see your points, I think your give the impression
> that #3 is better than #1 and #2. I think that is wrong.

I have to agree. OTOH #3 is certainly a viable way to do PIC
development also. And with it being a viable way to do PIC development
then the issues raised in this thread have validity.

> If
> one can afford an ICE2000/ICE4000 and the processor modules,
> by all means go and get it. It will help a lot. An ICD2 is
> one of the best investment for PIC development at its money.
> 
> Serial based monitor/debugger is good in some cases. However,
> an ICD2 and an ICE will be a very useful tool to speed up the
> debugging process.
> 
> This is similar to software debugging. Yes, "printf"s
> (similar to the serial monitor) will help the debugging. 
> But a good debugger will also help. People use debug/gdb/...
> (similar to ICE/ICD) to help troubleshooting as well.

All are viable choices. However the slow passage of interface
ports to USB make #3 a less viable option. I'm just considering
ways to keep it alive as an option.

> > So in the future, you'll have a serial port or it'll be on your list
> > anyway. Getting a bootloader into the PIC is the important 
> > thing. Byron's circuit with 555's is a step in the right direction. 
> > You can still get them at Radio Shack! And the circuit could also 
> > be built with schmitt triggers or oneshots if you prefer.
> > 
> 
> Even though I agree to have a bootloader in certain cases is
> good, I do not think it is such an important thing and is
> not necessary in many cases.

It's a choice. Some of us find the development model useful.

> For newbies, it complicates the developing and debugging process.

How so? Any code movement issues are trivially linked out. As Bob
has pointed out debugging can be enhanced by the phantom serial
interface that can be utilized by the application in real time.

It just another option. An option just as valid as the others.

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