On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:57:00AM +0800, Chen Xiao Fan wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu 
> > [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On Behalf Of Bob Blick
> > 
> > But since you have not used a bootloader, you have not had 
> > the chance to see how useful it can be, even when one already 
> > has an ICD or ICE.
> 
> Actually I have used bootloader (tiny bootloader and the USB
> bootloader) even though I have not used it at work.

Cool.

>  I am now 
> collecting more information about PIC bootloader. I can
> see that bootloader and serial monitor can be very useful.
> In fact I will start my dsPIC experiment and one of the first 
> thing I want to try is a dsPIC bootloader (I've already
> tried one from Daniel Chia). My point of view is still that
> all three debugging methods have their pros and cons.

Definitely. One of the major problems with a bootloader is that
you need some bootstrap hardware just to get the bootloader in the
chip in the first place. 

> I can see why #3 is more preferred by hobbyists.

I don't think it is. I think that many hobbyists go the very
traditional route of building/buying a parallel/serial programmer
and then use that programmer directly in the development cycle.

> But if one can
> afford to buy an ICD2, that is a good investment. It is a
> capable programmer as well as a capable debugger even though
> it has its limitations. It will be even useful for PIC18
> and dsPIC development. 

But it leads to the catch-22: Why spend the money on a programmer
that is rarely used in the actual development cycle?

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