Re: PIC Assembler.

On Oct 25, 7:31 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Anthony Fremont wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
ian field wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote

On the other matter, why are you so interested in PICs (as opposed
to 8051 family or any other) ? One nice thing about 8051 is that
the basic architecture doesn't change from model to model. I've
also heard that the data on the chips is more reliable.

Maybe I'm just more comfortable following what everyone else is
doing - Who knows, if I do well at PICs I might even have a look at
the AVR.

I think you're mistaken to imagine everyone uses PICs. It's more of a
joke than reality AIUI.

You're just being anti-PIC.

Not at all. I'm just poking fun at the oft-seen throwaway "use a PIC" comment.

Do you really think there are more people using
805x parts than PICs?

I believe they're used in comparable numbers.

Considering that you have little experience in programming micros

Meow !

and aparently none with PICs, I'm at a complete loss to
understand why you want to ram PL/M and 805x down everyones throat every
time this stuff comes up.

You sound a bit over-sensitive to me. I'm not ramming either down anyone's
throat. I was however posing a reasonable question to Ian.

What is it exactly that is so great about PL/M
and so "Bleh" about C?

'C' was never intended as a programming language for uCs. It's massive overkill.
PL/M was. Check the efficiency of the code they produce.

The top quality C compilers can produce superbly tight and efficient
code, even on the 14bit PICs. With C compilers you do often get what
you pay for. All HHL language compilers are not created equal, there
is massive variability between vendors. You can't just generalise and
say PL/M is better than C or whatever.

And if the efficiency of your C (or any HLL) compiler is that
important to your project then you are too close to pushing the limits
of your design, and should probably re-think your choice of processor
for that project. Sometimes it's necessary for various reasons of
course, but on your average project the efficiency of your HLL won't
matter a rats.

Dave.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: PIC Assembler.
    ... PL/M was. ... Check the efficiency of the code they produce. ... The top quality C compilers can produce superbly tight and efficient ... I think people fret too much and quite possibly erroneously assume that assembler will ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
  • Re: [OT] PostLisp, a language experiment
    ... some compilers might compile the ... > of the name is really irrelevant to any discussion of efficiency. ... my discussion with John Doty was based on stack ... apparently no runtime checks for stack mismatches, ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: What micros do you actually hate to work with?
    ... but modern optimized C compilers have gotten that down to just 20%. ... Unless, that extra 20% code space is a MUST, then its hard to justify ... Some years ago I was making motor ... efficiency of C actually *increases* on smaller projects. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: Im getting frustrated and angry!
    ... If it at least divulged the information we could build tools that would achieve correctness and efficiency. ... Modern C/C++ compilers don't do the dependency checking but they at least provide a way to get all the information you need to do the dependency checking. ... Jikes supported producing makefile dependencies, but it was incomplete and as I said makefile dependencies can't express the complexities of Java's compilation model. ...
    (comp.lang.java.help)
  • Re: Why Ruby interpreter is writed in c (not in c++)?
    ... An awful lot of Forth, Pascal, PL/M and ... assembler code was written before C compilers were good enough. ... Now, of course, the C compilers are good enough to build a high- ... I'm not the heretic -- the heretics are the people who added "labels ...
    (comp.lang.ruby)