>> I don't say that some knowledge of the asm level can't be beneficial,
>> but say that you *need* it is ridiculous.
>
> Um, not really, does the compiler automatically set the TRIS,
 > LAT or PORT registers for you?

[if I use Jal: the library, not the compiler itself, will take care of=20
that :) ]

But that has absolutely nothing to do with assembler versus C. Unless=20
you have a library that shields you from the architecture *of the=20
peripherals* (and you can have such a lib even in asm) you will have to=20
learn the details of that architecture. Totally independent of the=20
language you use.

> Some of these things get ingrained in the mind better by using ASM level
 > code rather than going to the higher level where
 > it gets abstracted somewhat.

I see no merit in that sentence at all. When I program on a Cortex chip=20
I have to check how the peripherals behave, and beside some declarations=20
(that are not part of the compiler but of a vendor-provided library)=20
that let me write

    SysTick->VAL =3D 0;

instead of

    *((volatile unsigend int *)(0x123456)) =3D 0;

the compiler does not help me at all. It is still up to me to read and=20
understand the SysTick peripheral. But I don't need to know whether=20
Cortex, ARM7, or even MIPS machine instructions are used to implement my=20
HLL statements.

Again, there are circumstances where some knowledge of assembly is=20
beneficial, most notably in very timing critical code, compiler errors,=20
and code size issues. But that's stuff for a seasoned professional, not=20
for someone who is starting with PICs.

--=20

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu

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