Bob Axtell wrote:
> "So, David, my advice is stick with assembly.  If you have to learn
> something, let it be something that can expand on what you
> already know and practice.  However, the ultimate decision is up to you."
>
> -------------
>
> I own a copy of Mikro Pascal and an ancient copy of CCS C.
>
> I am embarassed to say that in over 30+ years of development, not even
> ONCE was the commercial firmware written in a HLL. That does NOT mean
> I didn't try. I just didn't feel that the commercial HLL was "stable
> enough".
>
> As hard as assembler is to write, HLL is rarely better or faster
> overall, but you can "whip up" something in short order. But I always
> want to know, CLEARLY, how each routine actually worked. Sometimes it
> seemed pretty odd how the result was derived.
>
> Just because you are using an HLL does NOT mean that you are magically
> doing everything right. You may have misunderstood the firmware specs
> and already have a mess, regardless of the language. Or, maybe you
> have still installed a small bug somewhere; it STILL has to be rooted
> out aqnd killed.
>
> If I were starting over, I'd do the same thing: learn the hardware in
> assembly, then, later, move to C.

FWIW, all of our production code for the PIC was written in C. I have never 
really written anything worth mentioning in assembly.

I'm not saying your suggested approach is wrong; I'm simply pointing out 
that based on my experience, it's OK to skip over assembly and jump right 
into C.

Vitaliy 

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