Dwayne Reid wrote: >>On some level, it is funny to watch the attempts by the naysayers to >>explain >>why a method that worked spectacularly well for several of our major >>products, cannot work. But mostly, it's disappointing to see that so many >>are willing to criticize what they don't understand, and so few that are >>willing to listen with an open mind. > > On the contrary, Vitaliy. > > I am ** extremely ** interested in this discussion. But I would need > to see some concrete examples of WHY what you are proposing is so > wonderful. As it stands, all we have is you saying that it works well. I would love to post some of our code, but the code is proprietary and if I don't post enough there is not enough context and Olin, Wouter et al will rip it to shreds. I am not one to hide in the corner when I'm publicly ridiculed, but my time is valuable and I don't like to waste it. > While I can understand that what you are talking about works so well > for you, you don't give any guidance how the rest of us can learn > this technique. Have you read the thread I referenced earlier? We've been through this before, and instead of repeating myself I would rather answer clarifying questions. > You mentioned that it took you many years to learn to write programs > using this technique. You must have misunderstood. It didn't take me many years to learn the technique, it took me many years to discover it. Learning it is easy. > How can we be expected to agree with you when > we don't have that experience, and no way of seeing examples of this > technique. Most people seem to be content using what they've got, and they are reluctant to change. I remember that I was very motivated to find a better way to program, when I got frustrated with the way I was used to programming. I'm sorry, I am a small business owner with a wife and three young kids, so I don't have the time to serve it on a silver platter. Read the thread, ask questions, and try it for yourself. I don't know an easier way. > I've mentioned previously that I consider myself to be a mid-level > assembler programmer. I'm not a newbie and I've undertaken some > pretty complex projects - and completed them successfully. But I > take far longer to write complex software than I would like and am > extremely interested in improving my skill. I suspect that many of > us on the PIClist feel the same way. > > By all means - feel free to expound on your techniques. But you > better be prepared to SHOW us why its so much better, else you are > going to keep getting the response that you are currently getting. See above. :) I am not at all surprised by the response, because I've been there before. The old-timers think that agile is some kind of voodoo, even though it's over a decade old and had become mainstream. > Like I mentioned previously - copious comments are the only thing > that saves me when I have to dig into a project that I haven't > touched in 10 or 15 years. And - yes: some of our customers are > running equipment that is that old (or older) and don't think that it > is unreasonable to ask if they can have some changes made to > accommodate some new wrinkle in their production of their > products. We try to accommodate those requests if possible (it can > be quite lucrative ). Your situation is different, as I said many times -- I don't program in assembly. I'm not working on projects that sell in the millions of units, so I use C to maximize the ROI. The use of assembler is justified if you're programming for the 10F, optimizing a small portion of C code, or you're just so much better programming in assembly that the time it would take to master a higher level language is not worth the benefit. Vitaliy -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist