Just my 2 cents worth.  In my opinion, high level compilers for PIC's
aren't what they're cracked up to be.
 I program almost exclusively in assembler.  Most people don't program
this way.  They use an HLL.=20
 That's fine.  I have used 'C' for PIC's several times because a
customer requested or required the source
 to be in 'C'.  But, even in HLL's, if you look through the resulting
code, probably a third to a half of
 the code is in the same basic form as assembler.  Things like register
initialization, interrupt setup,=20
 etc. looks a lot to me like assembler. So, in my opinion, why waste my
time with 'C' when assembler is just
 as good.  Some people make the argument that HLL's are faster to code.=20
If you already know the language,
 maybe.  But to me, HLL's just add cost and complexity that isn't
necessary.

 Now before anyone says how wrong I am, let me say that this is my
opinion and experience talking.
 If you disagree, that's okay.  I won't think less of anyone that uses
and likes HLL's.  I'm just saying=20
 they're not for me.  Anyone reading this post can choose to consider
this information as helpful, or as=20
 pure rubbish.  Whichever you choose.  I'm just presenting it for
consideration as another voice of the
 PICLIST to someone contemplating the use of an HLL for PIC's..

 Regards,

 Jim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [PIC] programming DDS (was 32bit to 4x8bit)
> From: mcd@is-sixsigma.com
> Date: Tue, May 31, 2011 3:19 pm
> To: piclist@mit.edu
>=20
>=20
> Oli Glaser wrote:
> > People will probably have widely varying views on this one.
>=20
> heh - exactly.
>=20
> C on the smaller microcontrollers can be a real bear unless you are
> already familiar with the part and the compiler.  If you are already an
> expert on the chip it can be a real time saver.  But if you don't already
> understand the chip, then it can be a real black hole unless you stick to
> trivial problems.
>=20
> On the other hand, some of the newer, bigger, faster parts take C quite
> well.  Still, a microcontroller is not a mainframe, so programming it in =
C
> isn't like programming C on a PC.  There is still a lot of grody detail t=
o
> learn, but with parts like the 16 bit PICs, it isn't nearly the minefield
> it is with the 8 bit parts.
>=20
> If you haven't already invested a bunch of time into the 16Fs (as a lot o=
f
> hams have and the IV3YNB makes me suspect you might be one of them), I
> would suggest you get the biggest 24F or 30F you can get in a package you
> are comfortable with and have at it.  (Many of the cooler parts only come
> in hobbyist-hostile packages.) Even the most expensive of those PICs are
> under about ten euro, and with a ton of memory and pins you won't be
> trying to squeeze things in.  The 30Fs have the advantage of being 5 volt=
,
> so depending on the DDS you choose they may be worth it even if you don't
> need the DSP.  There are some differences in available features between
> the 24 and 30 families, but the basic programming is identical.
>=20
> Once you have a working prototype, if you then decide you want multiples,
> it is pretty easy to move to another, cheaper part in the same family.=20
> But if its just for you, then why not burn a couple of extra euro to save
> yourself some frustration.,
>=20
> If you don't mind spending a few euro I would suggest getting the Explore=
r
> 16 and a few of Microchip's protoboards to hold your circuitry.  That way
> all the micro support is taken care of (not that there's a lot) and you
> can focus on your own circuitry until you get more comfortable.  Plus,
> Microchip has some example code you can play with to get the hang of it.=
=20
> Kind of pricey but a nice way to get off the ground.
>=20
> Of course, there is the reverse approach.  There is plenty of DDS code
> around for the 16F family ... check out AA0ZZ's work for example.  Most i=
s
> for the AD98xx or si570, so if you are wanting to use a different DDS it
> may or may not be helpful.  The 16F's are dirt cheap, and have been a ham
> favorite forever.  But almost all the work there has been in assembler.  =
I
> don't personally see that as a problem (for obvious reasons).  But if you
> are just getting in now maybe it is better to dive into the newer, more
> capable parts.
>=20
> --McD
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist


--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.