On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:30:31 -0700 (PDT), John Chung wrote:
> Yeah I can imagine trace history. Cool feature to have. Easier on
> development. Still nothing bets well placed debugging logic :)

There are plenty of circumstances there the application code can't tolerate
*any* additional code for debugging or it simply won't work. This is where
hardware emulators really shine.

> I try not to use a debugger for not being to dependent on such assortment
> which might not exist on other development tools.

Interesting, I find just the opposite. I rarely use a simulator, maybe once
or twice a year for a given MPU family. Most (90% ?) of my debugging is
with hardware hooked up to real world devices debugging those processes,
not the hardware independent aspects of the software.

I currently develop with 6-8 different MCU families and will freely switch
from one to another when it fits the project. When I'm looking at a new MCU
family, the first thing I look at is whether it has a good C compiler,
relatively non-intrusive on-chip debug facilities and a good IDE debugger
(tightly coupled with the C compiler).

As much as I like PICs, I think the available PIC tools are making a slow
slide downward versus what's available for a lot of other chip families.
The ICSP/ICD methods Microchip uses are getting a bit long in the tooth and
I'm finding it harder and harder to work around some of their warts.

I doubt I'll ever go completely away from developing with PICs but they
certainly aren't the easiest to develop with anymore and usually not my
first choice, all things being equal.

Matt Pobursky
Maximum Performance Systems


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