Searching \ for 'Microchip vs Parallax assemblers' 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=microchip
Search entire site for: 'Microchip vs Parallax assemblers'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'Microchip vs Parallax assemblers'
1996\09\23@154440 by Bradley, Larry

flavicon
face
I don't want to start a religious war, but here goes ...

Why would one chose to use the Parallax assembler syntax as opposed to
the Microchip one? Given that there are a pile of app notes on the
Microchip Web site, and another pile of appnotes on the Parallax Web
site, are their programs that will translate from one to tht other?

I'm just getting started in the PIC world (I've programmed  lots in
assembly languages ... IBM mainframe and PC ... so assemblers don't scare
me). It seems to make sense to use the manufacturer's assembler, but
there must be a good reason why the Parallax one exists.

Any suggestions as to which way I should go?

Larry

1996\09\23@165745 by Chuck McManis

flavicon
face
The Parallax language  is easier to understand if you have programmed an 8051.
If you have several assembly languages under your virtual belt then using
the Microchip menemonics is the way to go because you won't ever be
"suprised" by what the chip is doing. (some of the parallax instructions
convert into half a dozen microchip instructions)

--Chuck


----------
From:   Bradley, Larry[SMTP:spam_OUTLARRY.BRADLEYTakeThisOuTspamNRC.CA]
Sent:   Monday, September 23, 1996 10:16 AM
To:     Multiple recipients of list PICLIST
Subject:        Microchip vs Parallax assemblers

I don't want to start a religious war, but here goes ...

Why would one chose to use the Parallax assembler syntax as opposed to
the Microchip one? Given that there are a pile of app notes on the
Microchip Web site, and another pile of appnotes on the Parallax Web
site, are their programs that will translate from one to tht other?

I'm just getting started in the PIC world (I've programmed  lots in
assembly languages ... IBM mainframe and PC ... so assemblers don't scare
me). It seems to make sense to use the manufacturer's assembler, but
there must be a good reason why the Parallax one exists.

Any suggestions as to which way I should go?

Larry

1996\09\23@194642 by Jeff Otterson/N1KDO

picon face
Parallax is better if you have gobs of excess cash around, and can't think
of other ways to get rid of it.


Seriously, the Parallax tool is probably great for some folks, but I want
control of exactly everything that goes into the object code.  Parallax has
these simulated 8051 type instructions that translate into god-knows-howmany
PIC instructions.

Plus, most of the example code you will find is Microchip flavored.

Just as it is good to know what's in your food, it's good to know what's in
your code.

P.S. Many thanks to Bob Fehrenback for sending me a rib recipe.  I had never
thought of using cider vinegar!

j.
Jeff Otterson
-------------
.....ottersonKILLspamspam@spam@mindspring.com
Maker and user of tools
PGP key available at http://www.mindspring.com/~otterson/pgp.htm

1996\09\23@215112 by Michael S. Hagberg

flavicon
face
>Why would one chose to use the Parallax assembler syntax as opposed to
>the Microchip one?

I switched from Parallax to Microchip. because i could debug with the
simulator. also the price was right (free download).

but I really miss the local labels.

hey Microchip! is there any talk of adding this feature to your assembler?


michael

1996\09\23@220150 by Steve Hardy

flavicon
face
> From: "Bradley, Larry" <LARRY.BRADLEYspamKILLspamnrc.ca>
>
> Why would one chose to use the Parallax assembler syntax as opposed to
> the Microchip one? Given that there are a pile of app notes on the
> Microchip Web site, and another pile of appnotes on the Parallax Web
> site, are their programs that will translate from one to tht other?
>

If you are doing 'real work', learn Microchip assembler.  At only 33 odd
instructions it is well within the ability of the average punter to
memorise everything relevant.  The MPASM assembler supports macros, unlike
the Parallax assembler.

I haven't heard of a translator between the twain, but I would recommend
manual translation for the rare cases where the app note contains code
which is directly relevant to your application.

On the general subject of using other peoples' code: Even if the source
is available in machine-readable format, I prefer to print the code out
and then type it in manually (at least for less than a few hundred lines).
I find there are several benefits to this: one being the therapeutic value;
another being that I am forced to read and understand each line of code;
and finally I am able to add my own comments which I would otherwise be
too lazy to do.

Regards,
SJH
Canberra, Australia

1996\09\24@093415 by myke predko

flavicon
face
>I don't want to start a religious war, but here goes ...
>

Maybe the pros/cons of the two assemblers should be discussed in a FAQ
somewhere.  There are people who are violently for and against the two
assemblers on philosophical grounds and bringing it up here usually ends up
in a jihad.  (Although the current thread is pretty restrained.)

As a thought, could the parallax assembler instructions be implemented in
the Microchip assembler as Macros?  I would be willing to do it if somebody
could point me to a summary of the Parallax instructions along with what the
expansions are.  This would eliminate the "major" stumbling block against
using the Microchip assembler which is it's inability to use Parallax
instructions (whereas the Parallax once can use both).

Myke

Do you ever feel like an XT Clone caught in the Pentium Pro Zone?

1996\09\24@173316 by vador Eduardo Tropea (SET)

flavicon
face
Hi Larry, you wrote:

>I don't want to start a religious war, but here goes ...
>Why would one chose to use the Parallax assembler syntax as opposed to
>the Microchip one? Given that there are a pile of app notes on the
>Microchip Web site, and another pile of appnotes on the Parallax Web
>site, are their programs that will translate from one to tht other?
>I'm just getting started in the PIC world (I've programmed  lots in
>assembly languages ... IBM mainframe and PC ... so assemblers don't scare
>me). It seems to make sense to use the manufacturer's assembler, but
>there must be a good reason why the Parallax one exists.
>Any suggestions as to which way I should go?

The Parallax asm. is more familiar to people that uses Intel chips so this
people could want to use it.
The drawback is that the Parallax syntax hides the real behavior of the CPU and
you could waste memory and machine cicles if you don't know what exactly
generates Parallax.
I preffer the macros, for example I have a macro library that's very similar
to the Parallax syntax and you can see, and modify, each macro. The only
advantage of the P asm. is the computation of branchs outside the current bank.

bye SET

********************************************************************************
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET) - .....salvadorKILLspamspam.....inti.edu.ar
Work: INTI (National Institute of Industrial Technology) Sector: ICE
(Electronic Control & Instrumentation)
Post (Home): Curapaligue 2124 - Caseros (1678)- Buenos Aires - Argentina

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1996 , 1997 only
- Today
- New search...