Re: 74HC123 and long pulse
- From: Nobody <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 04:26:31 +0100
On Sun, 10 May 2009 23:12:58 +0000, Nico Coesel wrote:
But... using a PIC is a really bad idea. I never was a fan of PIC
controllers based on what I've seen being made with PICs and the specs
from Microchip. Unfortunately one of my customers has a product for
which the PIC 16Fxxx firmware needs to be rewritten by me. Throwing
out the stock is just too expensive. The PIC processor's architecture
is even worse than I thought. Multiple memory banks, weak instruction
set. I need to jump through a lot of hoops to write C code for it and
work around the flaws in the hi-tech compiler. Can't even re-use
existing C code because pointers don't work well with multiple memory
banks. Having all data global is the most convenient. Altogether it
costs a lot of extra development time (=money). I start to wish they
had used an 8051! The PIC really is a dead-end around the next corner
if you want to get some serious work done.
You're comparing a PIC to a real CPU. This thread was comparing a PIC to
74-series logic. Do you actually need to use C (with pointers, relocatable
code etc) to write the firmware for a quad monostable?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 74HC123 and long pulse
- From: Spehro Pefhany
- Re: 74HC123 and long pulse
- References:
- 74HC123 and long pulse
- From: Marco Trapanese
- Re: 74HC123 and long pulse
- From: Jan Panteltje
- Re: 74HC123 and long pulse
- From: Martin Riddle
- Re: 74HC123 and long pulse
- From: Jan Panteltje
- Re: 74HC123 and long pulse
- From: Nico Coesel
- 74HC123 and long pulse
- Prev by Date: Re: Climatology: a wonderful science
- Next by Date: Re: Any Christian Electronic Designers Here?
- Previous by thread: Re: 74HC123 and long pulse
- Next by thread: Re: 74HC123 and long pulse
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|