Jim, I think we reached an agreement in our differences. In my opinion the problem is lack of information. If you do something the way you do knowing the alternatives, then it is OK. If you don't know the alternatives or have prejudice against them, then there is a problem. Don't worry about the spelling of my name, I don't know why but this happens a lot. Regards, Isaac Em 11/8/2011 17:30, jim@jpes.com escreveu: > Isaac, > > First, let me say that your remarks/thoughts/rebuttals were well > stated, and I accept your opinions. > You make some good points. And, generally, yes, I develop for PIC's > mostly. I do stray on ocassion, > but not often. And if I do, I don't stay for long. > > As I have stated many time before, my opinion of HLL's for PIC's is > they way overrated, and overkill > for lower end PIC's. The PIC24 series, the dsPIC, and the 32 bit PIC's > have an advantage in using HLL's. > > You're correct in saying that I choose to program in assembly. I enjoy > programming in asssembly. > You on the other hand, who writes code for whatever processor makes > sense in the given application at > the time, would be hard pressed to use assembly because of the > different instruction sets and and processor > specifics. C certainly makes sense in your case. I would do the same > thing given your circumstances. > > But I choose to use assembly. I enjoy writing assembly. And the apps > I program work as expected. > That's the bottom line from my perspective. > > One final thing. I apologize for misspelling your name on the original > post, and for the several typos I > noticed I made when I read your reply. > > Any, it was nice discussing this with you and I wish you continued > success in your programming endeavors. > > > Regards, > > Jim > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [PIC] Question about PIC "families" >> From: Isaac Marino Bavaresco >> Date: Thu, August 11, 2011 12:17 pm >> To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." >> >> >> Em 11/8/2011 11:02, jim@jpes.com escreveu: >>> 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, >> >> I don't think that statements like "REGISTER =3D value;" are specially >> "assembly like". And some tool-chains offer library functions for >> hardware initialization. >> >> >>> 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. >> >> You are certainly not in the group of people I mentioned in my post. >> Olin too, he is one of the most experienced engineers in this list and >> program (almost?) exclusively in assembly. Both you and some others do >> this by choice, knowing both sides of the coin and for some reason >> choose to program in assembly. >> >> >>> I can, and rather >>> handily I might add. I can also program in BASIC. I have even touche= d >>> 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. >> >> Perhaps we could say that you and Olin are "PIC" developers, so your >> vast library of PIC assembly code is enough. I develop for a range of >> processor architectures, so my vast library of C code is necessary. >> >> >>> Plus, on the >>> PICLIST website, there are many many >>> routines and algorithms contributed by users. >> >> And on the Internet there are uncountable millions of lines of code in C >> and other languages contributed by users. >> >> >>> So the need for HLL's in >>> my opinion is a false need. >> >> Your target market and needs may be different than mine. I need the >> portability given by an HLL. >> >> >>> With all of that said, I have no problem with anyone who wants to use >>> an HLL. >> >> I have no problem with anyone who wants to use assembly. >> >> >>> If that is what makes you >>> happy, >> >> What makes me happy is to finish a project quickly, with good quality >> and earn my money. >> >> >>> 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. >> >> Some perhaps may be afraid. I didn't say lazy. >> But most may have been misguided by the large number of people crying >> against C and other HLL. >> >> The truth is: An HLL makes development easier and quicker. It takes some >> thought to find something that is harder to do in C than in assembly. >> >>> 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. >> >> The hobbyist HAM radio operator may choose to use Morse Code because he >> likes. The professional HAM radio operator may need it in a specific >> occasion, but if he needs to use voice or other method he does. >> >> >>> In my opinion, assembly is the >>> same thing when it comes to PIC's. >>> At least in my case. >>> >>> Later, and Regards, >>> >>> Jim >>> >> >> Regards, >> >> Isaac >> >> -- >> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive >> View/change your membership options at >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .