Searching \ for '[PIC] Tutorial site' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devices.htm?key=pic
Search entire site for: 'Tutorial site'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[PIC] Tutorial site'
2008\08\18@072034 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
(Tag added)

Stephen,

I agree wholeheartedly with Josh's first one - a concise list
of the differences would be a great place to start.

Secondly, a "tips & traps" section, showing how some things
can be done more easily with the dsPICs, and things that
people often get wrong.

Much more than that and you'd be getting into too much
detail, IMHO.

Cheers,

Howard Winter
St.Albans, England

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 03:01:11 -0400, Josh Koffman wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Stephen D. Barnes
> <spam_OUTstephendbarnesTakeThisOuTspamcavtel.net> wrote:
> > Hi all. I have been working with PICs for about three
years. I started
> > with the 16F84 then moved to 16F628, etc. Lately (for he
last year) I
> > have been using the dsPIC30F2010. When I got started
with this chip,
> > there was almost no help, tutorials, etc. to get started. I
have noticed
> > that o lot of hobby enthusiasts would like to get started
with the dsPIC
> > family as well. I have found a lack of good info, all in one
place, for
> > learning about these chips. While I am no expert, I have
learned a lot
> > about this chip through trial and error, Microchip forums,
and last but
> > definitely not least, the piclist! I am considering the
creation of a
> > beginners tutorial site for the dsPIC beginner. If anyone
has any
> > suggestions for subject matter you think would benefit
the raw beginner,
> > I would be open to suggestions. TIA for any replies!
>
> Honestly what would help someone like me the most would
be two things:
> 1. A description of what is different between this and
previous chips
> perhaps with a few examples of why this matters
> 2. A few basic sample programs. Blink an LED type things
are really
> useful because while blinking an LED might be a simple
matter of
> flipping a bit on the port, you need to get the chip
completely set up
> and running before you can do that. As an example, how
many beginners
> don't realize they need to disable the comparators on some
16F chips?
>
> I hope that helps!
>
> Josh
> --
> A common mistake that people make when trying to design
something
> completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of
complete
> fools.
>  -Douglas Adams
> --

2008\08\18@073804 by Stephen D. Barnes

flavicon
face
Howard Winter wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Thanks for the input Howard! I had not considered a comparison of dsPIC
to the other families. You and Josh both have good ideas that follow a
common theme. Right now, I have a basic layout for the site and some
front page introductory content. Will be working on this a lot during
the week...so if anyone else wants to chime in with some ideas, feel
free. Also, if anyone has a site they would like me to link to, let me
know and I'll review it.
Thanks.

--
Regards,
Stephen D. Barnes

2008\08\18@074628 by Brendan Gillatt

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stephen D. Barnes wrote:
{Quote hidden}

As well as the things other people have mentioned, I strongly suggest you
dedicate a whole section to having a step-by-step guide to getting a
decent assembler/C toolchain set up.

Also, when doing the tutorials, choose a common part and stick to it
throughout. It will make things far more straightforward for the learner.

Nice to see someone helping out the beginners. I was in the same boat as
you when I first used a dsPIC, and to be honest I've barely scratched the
surface with these parts so far; I'm sure to take a read of any tutorial
you write. Keep us posted!

- --
Brendan Gillatt | GPG Key: 0xBF6A0D94
brendan {a} brendangillatt (dot) co (dot) uk
http://www.brendangillatt.co.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFIqWD4uv4tpb9qDZQRAuI5AJ41Ht8flheUpBOcaWhQY0QKNauLpwCgobBz
rY5wXLjwEF7IkAA+htEifbo=
=OWqB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2008\08\18@092309 by Matthew Rhys-Roberts

flavicon
face
Hear here... I also encourage the writing of a good guide on stepping up
from PIC assembler to C or other higher level language. This is
something I need to do myself, and have not yet begun looking around for
advice on how to do so!

For example, I now appreciate the skill required in writing or adapting
low-level maths library functions, but knowing how to abstract this sort
of process via a higher level language would be welcome.

Matt


Brendan Gillatt wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\08\18@092841 by Stephen D. Barnes

flavicon
face
Brendan Gillatt wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Well as far as I'm concerned, I have only scratched the surface as well
(scratched pretty hard though)! I intend to feature the dsPIC30F2010 for
several reasons. First, it is the only dsPIC I have worked with to date.
Second, it is a 28 pin part and easily sampled from Microchip. Third, I
have made this chip jump through a few minor hoops and will share what I
have learned. I am sure there will be others who will see this effort as
a low level undertaking, but it will be an education in itself for me as
well as other novices in the dsPIC arena. I will be as accurate as I
possibly can and will admit to ignorance when confronted with issues I
may not understand (that is when the PicList community comes in handy)!

As far as the tool chain is concerned, I have only worked with MPLAB and
code using assembly. I am currently exploring C, and the many
individuals here on the PicList have given me excellent advice resolving
some issues in assembly that required the C tool chain to resolve! I
intend to include these tidbits as well. Once I get the basic site up
(hopefully by the end of the week) I will post the URL. Any input will
always be welcome and accepted in a constructive manner! Thanks for the
reply.

--
Regards,
Stephen D. Barnes

2008\08\18@095917 by olin piclist

face picon face
First, you might trim the posts you are replying to.  Above the part you
wrote were 43 lines containing the complete text to two posts back,
including several signature lines and PGP barf.

Stephen D. Barnes wrote:
> I intend to feature the dsPIC30F2010

That's a somewhat niche part with limited memory since it's intended for
power supply control applications and the like.  If you intend your tutorial
to be more general purpose, I think the 30F4012 would be a better choice.
It has more memory and more all around utility, but also comes in the same
28 pin package.  The 30F3013 is another choice if you want to focus on high
precision analog circuits for some reason.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\08\18@100232 by Stephen D. Barnes

flavicon
face
Matthew Rhys-Roberts wrote:
{Quote hidden}

At this point in time, I do not have the experience in C to write such a
guide. I would love to see this too and would gratefully accept any
tutorial material and/or advice to be placed on the site along with due
credit and links to the author's site if applicable. I have been
struggling with the move to embedded C because C in any form is a new
language to me. On the PC I can manage at the beginners level but have a
few hurdles to overcome in shifting that knowledge to a micro. Some good
examples are port/pin representation, variable allocation specific to
the processor, and interrupt handling. To the initiated embedded C
programmer, what I just said may be no more than spewing nonsense
(probably is!), but when ya don't know, where do ya go? I have looked at
some C code examples for the PICs and in general they make sense but
there are areas that do not seem clear. When I get the time to really
dive in to embedded C and get over the hump with the concepts I am not
sure of, I will be generating a bit of traffic on the list for sure.
Thanks for the input Matthew. If you have any more suggestions, please
post them!

--
Regards,
Stephen D. Barnes

2008\08\18@101825 by Stephen D. Barnes

flavicon
face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
> First, you might trim the posts you are replying to.  
> <snip>
> Stephen D. Barnes wrote:
>  
>> I intend to feature the dsPIC30F2010
>>    
>
> That's a somewhat niche part with limited memory since it's intended for
> power supply control applications and the like.  If you intend your tutorial
> to be more general purpose, I think the 30F4012 would be a better choice.
> <snip>
Points well taken. The reason I chose the 30F2010 for the tutorial is
because it is the only one I have worked with. That being said, I have
no objections to studying the 30F4012 and possibly offering that on the
site as well. Honestly, I am not an embedded engineer though I do have
an EE and I have been working in the field of industrial controls and
automation for many years. PICs started as a hobby for me and have
evolved into the occasional niche solution to unusual problems on the
job. The majority of my work with these micros is in hobby robotics.
That is one reason I chose the 30F2010 to begin learning about the
dsPIC. It is well suited for motor control and encoder interfacing. But
I digress, I will get the datasheet for the 4012 and take a look see.
Thanks for your input Olin.

--
Regards,
Stephen D. Barnes

2008\08\18@102038 by olin piclist
face picon face
Stephen D. Barnes wrote:
> On the PC I can manage at the beginners level but
> have a few hurdles to overcome in shifting that knowledge to a micro.

If you don't know C that well, maybe just learn C30 specifically.  Think of
each embedded C implementation as a different language based on the
principles of C.  On small embedded systems it's more important to get
things done than worry about compatibility to some standard that doesn't fit
small systems anyway.

You will have to learn "real" C when you go to try it on a big platform,
like a PC, where the standard makes some sense and is generally adhered to.

> but when ya don't know, where do ya go?

To the manual, of course.  If you already know ASM30, then start with C30
from that basis.  The C30 subroutine linkage and stack use model are
reasonable (unlike C18).  Read the C30 manual and write a simple subroutine
you call from assembler.  That will give you a great understanding of how
things work.  From there you can write more and more parts of your project
in C30 as you wish.  You will probably find C30 more applicable to higher
level control where fancy data structures are useful, and ASM30 easier for
low level bit twiddling and where speed is critical.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\08\18@104736 by Stephen D. Barnes

flavicon
face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
> <snip>
>  
>> but when ya don't know, where do ya go?
>>    
>
> To the manual, of course.  If you already know ASM30, then start with C30
> from that basis.  The C30 subroutine linkage and stack use model are
> reasonable (unlike C18).  Read the C30 manual and write a simple subroutine
> you call from assembler.  That will give you a great understanding of how
> things work.  From there you can write more and more parts of your project
> in C30 as you wish.  You will probably find C30 more applicable to higher
> level control where fancy data structures are useful, and ASM30 easier for
> low level bit twiddling and where speed is critical.
>
>  
I did not look at it from that point of view! Will give it a try. Thanks
for the tip.

--
Regards,
Stephen D. Barnes

2008\08\18@121834 by Joe Bento

face
flavicon
face
I'm attempting to learn C and embedded C as well as JAL.  In my attempt
to learn, I initially had troubles in getting all the tools to work on a
Mac.  (I'm determined to take the Windows partition off my MacBook).
However, I now have a working Hi-Tech compiler, Eclipse IDE, and my
PicKit2 as well as a Wisp648 all working on my Mac.  I know know the
basic command line routines for the applications as well.

As far as learning a programming language, I've read mixed opinions.
The only assembler I've done are the example lessons with the PicKit2.
Some people seem to say to dig right in and learn C and forget
assembler.  With exception of some subroutines embedded in C (or JAL is
where I've seen it more frequently), is there any advantage to learning
assembler first?

I'm currently concentrating on the 10/12/16 PICs since I have a small
collection of several devices.

Joe



Matthew Rhys-Roberts wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\08\18@124505 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:14:02 -0600, "Joe Bento" <.....josephKILLspamspam@spam@kirtland.com>
said:

> As far as learning a programming language, I've read mixed opinions.
> The only assembler I've done are the example lessons with the PicKit2.
> Some people seem to say to dig right in and learn C and forget
> assembler.  With exception of some subroutines embedded in C (or JAL is
> where I've seen it more frequently), is there any advantage to learning
> assembler first?

I think everyone should learn assembler and write a few programs in it.
The experience you earn is worth it, since you will know firsthand what
it takes at the lowest level.

If you're like most people, after that you'll probably want to use C.
I'd wager that 90 percent or more embedded programmers are most
productive in C. The other 10 percent are smarter than me!

But the experience you get learning assembler will help you forever,
even if it's a different processor architecture. You'll write code that
is more efficient.

You still want to know the instruction set :)

And I frequently find using a little inline assembler here and there
easier than some weird C manipulation that's hard to remember and has to
be verified by looking at the compiler output.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class

2008\08\18@130846 by olin piclist

face picon face
Joe Bento wrote:
> is there any advantage to learning assembler first?

Yes.  That way you'll actually know what you're doing.

You don't have a operating system and multiple levels of software
abstraction on a PIC since that would take way too many resources.  As a
result, hardware dependencies and direct control of the hardware is going to
get into your code.  If you're not familiar with the peripherals and how the
PIC really works, you're going to waste a lot of time staring at strange
symptoms without much chance of figuring out what's going on.

Doing a little assembler first forces you to learn these low level details
that the compiler tries to hide from you, but that you will inevitably bump
into anyway.

> I'm currently concentrating on the 10/12/16 PICs since I have a small
> collection of several devices.

While I know it's possible, I really wouldn't want a compiler between me and
a 12 bit core PIC for any real project.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\08\18@130857 by PAUL James

picon face

All,

I agree that everyone should program some projects in assembly language
for the experience.
However, as I have stated before, I believe the HLL's are somewhat
over-rated for the PIC's.
I do all of my programming in assembly, unless the customer specifically
asks for C or BASIC,
or whatever.  I have tried many HLL's and always come back to assembler.


However, I have no problem with snyone using an HLL for PIC's.  It's a
personal choice most
of the time, so whatever one feels most comfortable with is what they
should go with.

I personally like the compactness of the code and the fine detail I get
with assembler that
I'm mostly insulated from with an HLL.   But again, that's just me.

The bottome line I guess is that...

Program in assembler to get a feel for the details of the machine, then
if you desire, go to
an HLL of your choice and continue from there.   And I know that HLL's
are getting better all
the time, and most now produce code almost as compact as assembler.  But
I still like the close
ties I have with the machine using assembler, so that is what I prefer.


       
Regards,

       
Jim


{Original Message removed}

2008\08\18@131928 by Stephen D. Barnes

flavicon
face
Joe Bento wrote:
> I'm attempting to learn C and embedded C as well as JAL.  In my attempt
> to learn, I initially had troubles in getting all the tools to work on a
> Mac.  (I'm determined to take the Windows partition off my MacBook).
> However, I now have a working Hi-Tech compiler, Eclipse IDE, and my
> PicKit2 as well as a Wisp648 all working on my Mac.  I know know the
> basic command line routines for the applications as well.
>
> As far as learning a programming language, I've read mixed opinions.
> The only assembler I've done are the example lessons with the PicKit2.
> Some people seem to say to dig right in and learn C and forget
> assembler.  With exception of some subroutines embedded in C (or JAL is
> where I've seen it more frequently), is there any advantage to learning
> assembler first?
>
> <snip>
>
I don't really know how to answer that question considering that I am
just starting to learn C on the PIC but I will give it a try! In my
particular circumstance, I feel that having learned assembly language on
the PIC has given me a firm understanding of how the processor behaves
at the core level. At this point in time, I'm not sure how C will
translate to assembly or how much code overhead will be produced but
there have been many discussions on the list concerning these concepts.
In the case of the hobbyist who uses a processor with enough memory,
some extra code generated by compiling the C source may not be a
problem. But being an engineering professional (although not in the
embedded field), I tend to gravitate toward the most efficient means of
solving a problem or creating a new design (I don't need a rail car to
haul a small truckload of trash). so I tend to choose a device that will
fit the purpose with little overkill. I know from my experience with
assembly and from my research into C, that there are benefits and
drawbacks to both. On a hobby level though, I think that I will complete
a project faster once I learn to use C. Hope that helps!

--
Regards,
Stephen D. Barnes

2008\08\18@143917 by Per Linne

flavicon
face
With all due respect, I have done several of these (PIC12).
(Several == 4-5) with the CCS compiler.
No problems at all.
And hold your breath: I've done 2 with the PIC10:s ;-)
Have also done at least 10 products in assembler, years ago.

PerL


{Original Message removed}

2008\08\18@193054 by David Meiklejohn

face
flavicon
face
Olin wrote:
>
> Joe Bento wrote:
>
>> I'm currently concentrating on the 10/12/16 PICs since I have a small
>> collection of several devices.
>
> While I know it's possible, I really wouldn't want a compiler between me
> and
> a 12 bit core PIC for any real project.

True.  Even for the examples in my baseline (12-bit core) C tutorials
(http://www.gooligum.com.au/tut_baseline_C.html) it became quite apparent,
as the examples became more complex, that both the HI-TECH and CCS C
compilers I was using were struggling.
The tutorials showed how to implement the examples from my baseline PIC
assembler  tutorials (http://www.gooligum.com.au/tut_baseline.html) in C,
using the free compilers bundled with MPLAB.  Flashing LEDs is no problem.
But when it came to replicating the assembler lesson where I implemented
a buffer to demonstrate indirect addressing, neither C compiler was able
to correctly generate code for accessing an array placed in bank 1.
I can understand why - indirect memory access and bank selection are
intertwined in the baseline architecture, because FSR is used for both -
so getting it right is tricky, especially when very little shared memory
is available.  As I said, it was beyond either compiler.
I also had to battle compiler bugs (acknowledged by the vendors after I
reported them) and poorly documented built-in functions at various times.

Overall, unless what you're doing is trivial, forget C on baseline PICs.


David Meiklejohn
http://www.gooligum.com.au


2008\08\18@235328 by Joseph Bento

face
flavicon
face
Sigh....   Admittedly, everything I've done in C for baseline PICs has  
involved flashing LEDs.  While I do not wish to abandon my desire to  
learn C, perhaps I should concentrate in learning assembly as people  
seem to suggest.  I'm also dabbling in JAL, which I'm finding very  
enjoyable.

I have several books that I can reference.  It's unfortunate that any  
past attempt has found assembly to be exceedingly frustrating -  
perhaps from lack of proper descriptions to what is happening with the  
instruction.

Among the books I have is, "Easy Microcontrol'n" (formerly Easy  
PIC'n).  I'm not sure what to think.  It seems a bit hard to follow  
along.  Though still in publication, it's not an easy book to find.  
Prices fluctuate widely depending on where it is purchased.

As for online sites, this might be one of the better sites I've come  
across:

http://www.mstracey.btinternet.co.uk/pictutorial/picmain.htm

Many of the beginning tutorial sites concentrate on the 16F84.  While  
I have a few of these, I know it is an obsolete chip.  Many of these  
same tutorial sites also use technically obsolete instructions (TRIS,  
for example) that are fortunately backward compatible.

So, I need direction (a kick, perhaps?) to get me started in the right  
direction.  I'm not so involved in imbedded C that I can't set that  
aside.

Joe



On Aug 18, 2008, at 5:30 PM, David Meiklejohn wrote:
>
> Overall, unless what you're doing is trivial, forget C on baseline  
> PICs.
>

2008\08\19@000946 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
Joseph Bento wrote:
> Sigh....   Admittedly, everything I've done in C for baseline PICs has  
> involved flashing LEDs.  While I do not wish to abandon my desire to  
> learn C, perhaps I should concentrate in learning assembly as people  
> seem to suggest.  I'm also dabbling in JAL, which I'm finding very  
> enjoyable.

I have used Hi-Tech C for baseline PICs, and as long as you don't go
hog-wild with functions calling functions calling functions, it works great.

Basically the tiny stack on the baseline PICs is the drawback. It has to
use a jump table if the stack exceeds 2 levels, and that uses more ROM
and is a little slower, too.

But I have been happy with C on baseline parts, using it for fairly
simple stuff, and try to put as much as possible in the main loop.

C is a useful language, especially when you decide to switch to the AVR.
I'll duck now :)

Cheerful regards,

Bob

2008\08\19@071646 by olin piclist

face picon face
Joseph Bento wrote:
> Sigh....   Admittedly, everything I've done in C for baseline PICs has
> involved flashing LEDs.

Why are you focused on the baseline PICs?  The instruction set of a PIC 18
is only slightly more complicated, but easier to use because of simplified
banking, LAT registers, pointer registers the full width of the address, and
other niceties.  It sounds like this is for one off hobby use, so it doesn't
matter if the PIC costs $3 or $5.

Get a handful of 18F2620 and don't look back.  These are availale in the
hobbyist friendly 28 pin DIP package.  You can wire up the circuitry to make
one go on a protoboard, or you can get something like my ReadyBoard-01
(http://www.embedinc.com/products/ready01) that takes care of the
infrastructure and gives you a place to add your own circuit.

> While I do not wish to abandon my desire to
> learn C, perhaps I should concentrate in learning assembly as people
> seem to suggest.

You don't have to abandon C, just wait until you know enough of the basics
so that you are ready to add the complication of a compiler.  Think of
assembler as a prerequisite for learning C on small microcontrollers.

> It's unfortunate that any
> past attempt has found assembly to be exceedingly frustrating -
> perhaps from lack of proper descriptions to what is happening with the
> instruction.

PIC instructions are all well documented in the data sheet for whatever PIC
you are using.  You can ask here if you have specific questions about
something you don't understand in the datasheet.  For example, "What is
banking" is a stupid question that only merits a RTFM response at best, but
"On page 39 is says ... but the diagram on page 40 ..." will have people
falling over each other to help you.

> Among the books I have is, "Easy Microcontrol'n" (formerly Easy
> PIC'n).  I'm not sure what to think.  It seems a bit hard to follow
> along.

The only book that matters is the data sheet.  It does assume you have a
general understanding of microcontrollers and computers at the low level,
but all the PIC specific details are in there, and they are well written.

As for how to get the general introduction, I don't know.  I learned this
many years ago in high school by reading the equivalent of the PIC datasheet
for a PDP-8.  I did have to read it a few times, each time something new
made sense because of something learned the previous pass.  But I had all
Easter vacation, and by the end I could write programs on paper, hand
assemble them, then toggle them in on the front panel.  Fortunately for you,
experimenting is a lot easier with MPLAB.  The simulator is a great tool for
trying out pieces of code.  You don't even need a real PIC to get the basic
concepts.

> Many of the beginning tutorial sites concentrate on the 16F84.

That's usually a sign of the clueless leading the blind.

> So, I need direction (a kick, perhaps?) to get me started in the right
> direction.

Most PIC web sites are put up by idiots who are so thrilled that got a PIC
to do anything after four weeks of random poking, they want to show it off
to the world.  There's a reason it took them 4 weeks, and you don't really
want to pick up their bad habits and misconceptions.

However, occasionally someone that actually knows what they are doing does
write a tutorial.  I sortof remember there were two reasonable ones.  If I
remember right, David M(?) wrote one, and I forget the other.  I don't have
links to either, but I'm sure others will chime in with them.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\08\19@081304 by David Meiklejohn

face
flavicon
face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
>
> However, occasionally someone that actually knows what they are doing
> does
> write a tutorial.  I sortof remember there were two reasonable ones.
> If I
> remember right, David M(?) wrote one, and I forget the other.  I don't
> have
> links to either, but I'm sure others will chime in with them.

Thanks Olin.

My tutorials are at: http://www.gooligum.com.au/tutorials.html

So far I have completed tutorial series on programming baseline PICs in
assembler and C, and have made a start on midrange PIC assembler and C (just
basic digital I/O so far - I'm currently writing up an intro to timer0, and
after that I can finally introduce interrupts).  This project is taking
seemingly forever, although it's going faster now that I can recycle a lot
of the baseline material - e.g. Timer0 is almost identical between 12-bit
and 14-bit parts; the only significant change I'm making is to rework one
example to make use of T0IF, since there is no overflow flag on the baseline
PICs.  

Addressing a couple of points - I can't disagree with those who say that
beginners should start with 18F parts.  I understand and largely agree with
the argument.  In the end, I began my tutorials with the 12-bit architecture
because the 12F508 (which I start lesson 1 with) is so simple - no banking,
no paging, no "remember to turn off analog so you can use PORTA".  Starting
simple and moving up (12F508 -> 12F509 -> 16F505 -> 16F506 and then starting
again with 12F629) allowed me to introduce concepts when I wanted to get to
them.  But - that's the approach I wanted for my tutorials, to avoid the
potential for confusing explanation.  It's not necessarily where I'd start
if I wanted to learn 8-bit PICs and be productive quickly - I agree with
Olin that something like a 18F2650 is a great starting point.

As for putting up a site after 4 weeks of random poking - I sometimes wonder
why I'm spending so much spare time writing tutorials, instead of designing
things (which is much more fun).  Partly it's Olin's fault!  Seriously, I
taught myself about PICs about 3 years ago now, using a couple of books I
bought, the data sheets, and the lessons that came with the PICkit 2.  All
used absolute mode, so that's how I started.  I knew that relocatable
existed, but it seemed a bit mysterious - almost all the material I came
across was in absolute mode, including Microchip's own materials.  Then
about a year later I came across Olin's arguments on the Microchip forum, in
favor of using relocatable code.  What he said made good sense, so I tried,
found it was easy, and became a convert - it just seemed logical.  So, given
the dearth of training materials using relocatable code, I thought I'd try
filling the gap by writing them myself.  And now I keep going mainly through
inertia...


David Meiklejohn
http://www.gooligum.com.au


2008\08\19@082421 by Mohit (Lists)

picon face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
>  I sortof remember there were two reasonable ones.  If I
> remember right, David M(?) wrote one, and I forget the other.  I don't have
> links to either, but I'm sure others will chime in with them.
Are they?
1. http://www.gooligum.com.au/
2. http://www.amqrp.org/elmer160/

Btw, Olin, you may consider going back to Microchip Forum. Although they
haven't stopped the rating system, but your score is 186. I think you
top the rating.

--
Mohit Mahajan,
http://www.BioZen.co.in

2008\08\19@095700 by Joe Bento

face
flavicon
face
I think I know where I'll be studying from!  I have a PicKit2 and couple
12F509s ready to go.

I only browsed through lesson 1, already I've seen the best explanations
of any tutorial.

Looking forward to getting started!

Joe


David Meiklejohn wrote:
> Thanks Olin.
>
> My tutorials are at: http://www.gooligum.com.au/tutorials.html
>
>  

2008\08\19@121649 by olin piclist

face picon face
Mohit (Lists) wrote:
> Btw, Olin, you may consider going back to Microchip Forum. Although
> they haven't stopped the rating system, but your score is 186. I
> think you
> top the rating.

My actual rating was never the issue.  It's that Microchip gives everyone a
official numeric score that is at the whim of anyone with a spare hour and a
internet connection.  There have been a number of abuses.  My score being
186 is just as phony as when someone was artificially holding it negative.

If they just got rid of the score by the poster's name, that would be fine.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\08\21@050345 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Olin Lathrop wrote:

> While I know it's possible, I really wouldn't want a compiler between me and
> a 12 bit core PIC for any real project.

I've used C on such devices, only that couple of times when I was
*almost* sure that the project would have evolved into a larger PIC, and
I wanted to preserve Code Portability.
I know that Assembler among PICs gets quite similar, and hardware init'n
has to be adapted as well...
But C still gives to me, IMO, a safer environment. Of course, it won't
be that much "optimized" ... :)

--
Ciao, Dario -- ADPM Synthesis sas -- http://www.adpm.tk

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...