Hello, I=B4ve been writing may codes in assembly since 1998 to 16F and 18F family. For example, I did not need to use the USB port yet, but I think to get it= =20 in assembly won=B4t be easy. In C, of course, is more easy to get it. For this reason, I=B4ve been think= ing=20 that is time to start learn C for PIC. Regards Luis F. Subject: RE: [PIC] Question about PIC "families" > > Issac, > > The point you make about HLL's for PIC's being faster to develop > software with is valid. At least to a > point in my opinion. Many HLL's, C in particular, use many assembly > like statements to initialize some > hardware aspects, such as ports or A to D's. And if HLL's are what you > want to program in, that is all > well and good. > > I, persoanlly, prefer to remain with assembly. Not beccause I can['t > progrqqm in C. I can, and rather > handily I might add. I can also program in BASIC. I have even touched > on JAL, and PASCAL. However, I > just don't think the PIC's, at least the 16 series, gains enough of an > edge from HLL's to justify their > cost or complexity. Assembly is just fine. I have written enough > assembly over the years that I have a > large library of routines and algorithms to draw from. Plus, on the > PICLIST website, there are many many > routines and algorithms contributed by users. So the need for HLL's in > my opinion is a false need. > > With all of that said, I have no problem with anyone who wants to use > an HLL. If that is what makes you > happy, or that is what you are used to or prefer, far be it from me to > say you can't use them. > But the blanket statement that the reason people don't want to use an > HLL is because they are afraid, or too > lazy to learn HLL's isn't fair either. > > I use it because I prefer it. I like to write in assembly. It is fun > to me. But on those ocassions when > I need to write in an HLL, I can. Because I have already learned them. > Many years ago. > > It's sort of like the ham radio operator who uses morse code to > communicate rahter than voice modes. The > reason is because they enjoy that mode. In my opinion, assembly is the > same thing when it comes to PIC's. > At least in my case. > > Later, and Regards, > > Jim > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [PIC] Question about PIC "families" >> From: Isaac Marino Bavaresco >> Date: Thu, August 11, 2011 7:49 am >> To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." >> >> >> I started programing PICs in assembly about 16 years ago. At that time >> we didn't have access to good (if any at all) C compilers for PIC. >> >> Even then I was using C already for many years for some Texas' DSPs, >> x86, 68000, Z80 and 8051 derivatives (80C31/32 at first and lately >> Atmel's 89Cxx), so I was not a beginner. >> >> Several years ago I got a good C compiler for PICs and switched to C for >> good. >> >> Besides faster development time there are other important advantages. >> Perhaps the most important is the code re-usability. I can't remember of >> a project in recent years that I didn't use some part of older ones, >> even for different families of processors (I have code originally >> written for PIC16F running in 400MHz ARMs). >> >> Now I only program in assembly the critical parts that demand the last >> bit of speed (I try to avoid this path, I prefer to use a more powerful >> processor to have some headroom for future enhancements) or where the >> timing is critical (bit-banged communications, etc.) >> >> >> There is no reason to use assembly in simple routines like menus, user >> interfacing, decision logic, etc. Usually they don't need any speed at >> all. The simplicity of the high-level language is much more readable. A >> single-line 'if' in C may need one or two pages of assembly code. >> >> >> It amazes me that so many people stay with assembly only, as if there >> were some "potential barrier" keeping them away from using some >> high-level language. There is a lot of misconception, such as "it won't >> fit" or "it will not be fast enough" if written in C (or any other HLL). >> Choose the next bigger or faster CPU instead, they may even be cheaper >> in some cases. >> >> If the problem is the learning curve, bite the bullet and learn it, your >> reward will come soon. >> >> >> Isaac >> >> >> Em 11/8/2011 07:47, Electron escreveu: >> > I second that. Moreover, after making a project with the dsPIC30F6014 >> > I was going to start my next project with it.. thinking the PIC32 woul= d >> > cost more. I was very surprised to discover that the most featured=20 >> > PIC32 >> > costed one fifth of the dsPIC30F6014.. :P >> > >> > So I have an excuse to learn MIPS programming. ;) >> > >> > But let's not forget that C is more effective on PIC32 than on dsPIC,= =20 >> > of >> > course. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Mario >> > >> > >> > >> > At 13.58 2011.08.09, you wrote: >> >> Don't forget the 32-bit family PIC32. Their core is not PIC at all, i= t >> >> is a MIPS processor, but the peripherals are extended versions of the >> >> lesser PIC's. >> >> >> >> I am very pleased with the PIC32 devices. I would suggest anybody to >> >> program them in C, to be able to use their full capabilities without >> >> getting lost in the details of assembly code. The performance loss is >> >> negligible in such a powerful CPU, and the faster development more=20 >> >> than >> >> compensates for. >> >> >> >> And now they run BSD Unix! >> >> >> >> >> >> Em 9/8/2011 03:25, Jan-Erik Soderholm escreveu: >> >>> Yes, to a high degree. >> >>> >> >>> There are a few "families". >> >>> >> >>> Base line. The oldest. PIC12F5xx, the older PIC10, >> >>> some old PIC16F5xx. Probably best to just forget >> >>> about it... :-) 12-bit instruction word. A bit >> >>> messy to program. >> >>> >> >>> Midrange. The "normal" PIC16. Most of what most hobbyists >> >>> are using. 14-bit instruction word. >> >>> >> >>> Enhanced Midrange. The new PIC16F1xxx. The new standard >> >>> PIC16's. Also 14-bit instruction word. Some new quite >> >>> nice features. Faster the the old Midrange. >> >>> >> >>> High end. PIC18. All very similar architecture. Some with a >> >>> few extra extended instruction mainly ment for C compilers. >> >>> >> >>> Then there are the 16-bitters PIC24, 30 and 33. I think they >> >>> are pretty similar apart from the DSP extras in the 30/33. >> >>> >> >>> So, yes, you are more or less correct. :-) >> >>> >> >>> Jan-Erik. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Nathan House wrote 2011-08-09 03:55: >> >>>> I've been trying to learn to use PIC microcontrollers for a while=20 >> >>>> now, >> >>>> but I've stuck to using a PIC18F4550/2550 and a dsPIC30F4011. I'm >> >>>> curious, are all PIC devices within the same "family," such as=20 >> >>>> PIC18F >> >>>> or dsPIC30F, the same as far as the way they are programmed (memory >> >>>> organization, instruction set, register and port names, etc..), wit= h >> >>>> the only difference being the peripheral set? >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks for satisfying my curiosity! >> >>>> >> >>>> -Nathan >> >>>> >> >> --=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 > > > --=20 > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist=20 --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .