On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 01:09:57PM -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Byron Jeff wrote:
> > Finally I work in an academic environment with a bunch of students.
> > Buying a lab full of programmers for development doesn't make much
> > sense.
>=20
> Really?  As I said, I'd be willing to make a bunch of LProgs available to
> you (or anyone else in a legitimate educational setting) for a substatial
> discount.  Even at full retail 20 LProgs is only $400, which has got to b=
e a
> small fraction of the cost of the rest of the lab equipment.  With the
> educational discount that would be $280 ($14 each).

I didn't say cost Olin. It doesn't make much sense when chips can program
themselves.

I have a networking lab. We have a lab full of USB to serial cables to talk
to the routers. They can trivially be repurposed for PIC development.

Also LProgs are limited to the type of chips they can program, as are the
cheap Microchip offerings.

Finally, you have meticulously avoided discussing my point about having to
manage the ICSP interface to PGD, PGC, and MCLR. With a bootloader, the
only item the target requires is a high value pulldown resistor on an out
of the way port pin. PortB on any part becomes completely free for
development without any additional management.

I'm trying to comprehend why my discussion of bootloaders seems to
invalidate traditional programmers and causes these circular discussions.
Especially when functioning in a non Windows environment, programmers are
not end all and be all of development as the support tools are limited.

It's not just about cost. It's about simplicity and versitility too.

BAJ

--=20
Byron A. Jeff
Department Chair: IT/CS/CNET
College of Information and Mathematical Sciences
Clayton State University
http://cims.clayton.edu/bjeff
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.