Post by thread:another q from the stupid newbie

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'another q from the stupid newbie'
1997\10\08@182740 by Jonathan M. Newport

Thank you all for your responses to my seemingly endless list of questions, but I do have a few more... when I do get a programmer, (which I think I may end up getteing that PIC-1a kit from ITU) should I get that begining book, easy pic'n (or something like that) and I do believe that it only teaches to program in assembly (correct me if I'm wrong on that). Should I use a c compiler for the pic, picbasic, or what? I know assembly is VERY hard to learn (according to my physics teacher) and I really don't know any other language besides Pbasic and my calculator's language (which I'm told is like c). I am more than willing to learn any language though. So, what do you recommend? sincerely Jonathan

1997\10\08@184435 by Rick Dickinson

1997\10\08@190422 by Sean Breheny

At 05:25 PM 10/8/97 -0500, you wrote: >Thank you all for your responses to my seemingly endless list of >questions, but I do have a few more... when I do get a programmer, (which >I think I may end up getteing that PIC-1a kit from ITU) should I get that >begining book, easy pic'n (or something like that) and I do believe that >it only teaches to program in assembly (correct me if I'm wrong on that). >Should I use a c compiler for the pic, picbasic, or what? I know assembly >is VERY hard to learn (according to my physics teacher) and I really don't >know any other language besides Pbasic and my calculator's language (which >I'm told is like c). I am more than willing to learn any language though. >So, what do you recommend? > >sincerely > >Jonathan > Even if you finally decide to use C or some other higher level language as your mainstay, I would highly recommend learning assembly. Your physics teacher, I'm afraid, has a big misconception. Assembly, especially a RISC-like assembly such as pic assembly, is quite easy to learn, especially for someone with a bit of prior programming experience. The 16C/F84 has only around 30 instructions, so there is very little to memorize, unlike C or BASIC where there are usually 100s of possible keywords and functions. I really don't feel that you would take longer than a few days to get a working knowledge of assembly for the PICs. Most of the other PICs follow almost the same instruction set, the only real differences being which memory locations do what. About getting a book, it could really help you if you feel confused about assembly or have little idea of what it is about. I started off in pics by just getting the microchip databooks. They are quite well put together. However, I had prior 8088 assembly experience, which meant that I was already familiar with bits,bytes,and logical operations (AND,OR,XOR,etc.) as well as splitting up algorithms into individual simple instructions. My advice: get the microchip databooks first (they are free in the US. Some of the members of the list who are not from the USA have said that they had to pay for them, if I remember correctly) You can also download the datasheets for the individual pics from http://www.microchip.com If you can wade through the datasheets and make some sense out of them, then you probably don't need any other book, although it still might help. The first program to try on any microcontroller system (pic or otherwise) is always a blinking LED. On a 16C/F84, this would be implemented very simply: 1.) a crystal and two capacitors would be connected to the oscillator pins (or you could use a resistor and capacitor) as shown in the datadsheets. 2.) You would attach a resistor of about 220 ohms from a pic I/O pin to the anode of an LED and then attach the cathode to ground. 3.) You would attach the Vdd pic pin to +5 volts 4.) You would attach the Vss pic pin to ground. 5.) You would attach the MCLR pin to +5 volts. 6.) You would write code that did the following: a.) set the IO pin you are using to an output using a CLRF instruction or a MOVWF instruction to modify the correct bit in one of the TRIS registers. b.) turn on the IO pin (set its bit in its PORTx register) c.) wait about 1 second by having a large nested loop abo ut 1000000 instruction cycles long for a 4MHz clock. d.) turn off the IO pin (clear its bit) e.) wait the delay period again f.) loop around to step b This is very rough and I don't expect you to follow it until you have had a look at the pic datasheet for the 16C/F84 (unless you have been following this list for a while). However, if you do basically this, your circuit should blink an LED on/off with a period of 2 seconds continuously. Be very happy if you get this to work (it usually doesn't work the first time :) When you finally get this to work, it is a small step from here to any other great and wonderful PIC application! Sean BTW I agree with Lawrence Lile that there is no such thing as a stupid newbie. Even if there were, you certainly would not be one, because, from what I have seen you have worked on some pretty interesting stuff. Sean Breheny,KA3YXM Electrical Engineering Student

1997\10\08@190837 by Andrew Warren

Jonathan M. Newport <.....PICLISTKILLspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote: > when I do get a programmer, (which I think I may end up getteing > that PIC-1a kit from ITU) should I get that begining book, easy > pic'n (or something like that) .... Yes. > .... and I do believe that it only teaches to program in assembly Yes. > Should I use a c compiler for the pic, picbasic, or what? > I know assembly is VERY hard to learn (according to my physics > teacher).... Plenty of people think Physics is hard to learn, too... But that didn't stop your teacher. > .... and I really don't know any other language besides Pbasic and > my calculator's language (which I'm told is like c). I am more > than willing to learn any language though. So, what do you > recommend? If you write in a high-level language, you will NEVER use the PIC's resources to their utmost potential. Use assembly; it's a lot easier than you've been led to believe. If you DO decide to use C in the future, prior knowledge of the PIC assembly language will help you write C code that executes efficiently... And it'll also allow you to find the bugs that your C compiler generates. -Andy === Andrew Warren - fastfwdKILLspamix.netcom.com === Fast Forward Engineering - Vista, California === http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499

1997\10\08@191508 by Rob Zitka

I got Easy Pic'n and it's not bad, but it could be better. It's probably the only resource outside of Microchip/Parallax. ALthough, I think someone just published a book based on the PIC just recently and someone gave it the thumbs up. As for learning Assembly or C or whatever. Assembly will let you see how all the little operations work on your PIC. The downside is that it is time consuming to learn and implement. At you age though, it may not ba a bad idea. C is a language that you can use throughut life, and on more powerful machines. It's the long term way to go. I do Pbasic because I need to get things done quickly since my PIC stuff is done after work when I don't have much tome. So there you have it. I have thoroughly confused you :) Rob At 05:25 PM 10/8/97 -0500, you wrote: {Quote hidden}>Thank you all for your responses to my seemingly endless list of >questions, but I do have a few more... when I do get a programmer, (which >I think I may end up getteing that PIC-1a kit from ITU) should I get that >begining book, easy pic'n (or something like that) and I do believe that >it only teaches to program in assembly (correct me if I'm wrong on that). >Should I use a c compiler for the pic, picbasic, or what? I know assembly >is VERY hard to learn (according to my physics teacher) and I really don't >know any other language besides Pbasic and my calculator's language (which >I'm told is like c). I am more than willing to learn any language though. >So, what do you recommend? > >sincerely > >Jonathan > >

1997\10\08@195047 by )

Jonathan Newport wrote: > should I get that > begining book, easy pic'n (or something like that) and I do believe > that > it only teaches to program in assembly (correct me if I'm wrong on > that). > Should I use a c compiler for the pic, picbasic, or what? I know > assembly > is VERY hard to learn (according to my physics teacher) and I really > don't > know any other language besides Pbasic and my calculator's language > (which > I'm told is like c). I am more than willing to learn any language > though. > So, what do you recommend? > I get the feeling I may be in the minority on this, but I believe that you should start with assembly/machine language. You become intimately familiar (in a hurry) with the processor architecture, inner workings, and features. I believe this to be rather important in working with microcontrollers/embedded systems. I too, started out with something similar to PBASIC (microEngineering's Pic BASIC) using Micromint's PICStic. (The difference between a PICStic and a Stamp is that a Stamp interprets BASIC tokens from external memory, while PBASIC on a PICStic is compiled to PIC machine code and downloaded to the processor directly. Also allows assembler to be mixed in.) My first project started out in Pic BASIC, but with only about 1/4 of the code done and less than 200 bytes of code space left, I had to change to assembly. Apparently I have some sort of learning disability, because trying to learn C gives me fits! For some reason, the language syntax just doesn't make sense to me, but I'm obviously the odd one on this. And it's the only programming language that does. (Admittedly, I don't have the time to tinker that I used to.) Over the past 15 years. I've programmed extensively in about a half dozen programming languages with at least a half dozen dialects of each not to mention numerous machine languages. Even if you do work in a high level language on a PIC, you'll still need to know some machine language for debugging. I believe the most important thing about programming to remember is that programming is not about language syntax (except for the C impaired like me), but about a logical, organized, coherent, and structured approach to problem solving. A really good programmer (I'm not claiming I'm one of them!) should be able to work in any programming language (after learning a language's syntax and structure). Conversely, a good programmer will also choose the right tool for the right job. For example, I wouldn't program a Windows application in ladder logic (ladder logic is used in programmable controllers for factory automation and machine control) and I wouldn't expect to use Pascal for Windows with Objects to program a 16C84! As for PIC assembler, it took me about three weeks to become reasonably comfortable with it. PIC architecture is different from anything I'd worked with before. Start small and build from there. Microchip's MPLAB is priced right. You have at least two advantages over many of us - you're a lot younger and learn quicker and you don't have a deadline for your project to worry about. -Frank Frank Richterkessing .....FRANK.RICHTERKESSINGKILLspam.....APPL.GE.COM

1997\10\08@202819 by Rob Whitney

1997\10\08@203451 by Bob Lunn

Bob Lunn 10/09/97 10:39 AM > I know assembly is VERY hard to learn (according > to my physics teacher) Eh? Ask them for a relativistic explanation of the anomolous precession of Mercury! Anyhoo... learn assembler. Why? It will lead you to an appreciation of the difference between the expression of an algorithm, and the implementation of an algorithm. An algorithm (a description of a computation) can be expressed in many ways. PIC assembler is one way. An algorithm can be implemented in many ways. The sequence of states represented by PIC assembler is one way. The one-to-one correspondence between the syntactic expression of the algorithm, and the machine states implementing the algor- ithm is (I believe) enlightening. ___Bob

1997\10\08@205949 by William Chops Westfield

It might be worthwhile learning assembler on a more general architecture and more interactive environment than is obtainable on PICS. Learning PIC assembler should be trivial, as long as it's your third or better architecture. Trying to learn ASSEMBLER concepts at the same time you learn PIC assmebler concepts might be trying. Certainly trying to write your first assembler routine on home-designed HW, where each iteration involves erasing and reprogramming some chip is an activity akin to a punched-card environment - very unpleasant. I don't know if the assorted simulators available would be enough to help or not... Does anyone make a simulator where you can "connect" simmulated high level peripherals to your simulated device? simulated async terminals, simulated LCD displays, simulated PWM meters, simulated analog circuitry ala the basic stamp analog hacks, simulated multiplexed displays, etc, etc? Any architecture would be interesting... Anyone have ideas about how to do this? BillW

1997\10\08@223816 by Antti Lukats

At 05:58 PM 8/10/97 PDT, you wrote: >It might be worthwhile learning assembler on a more general architecture >and more interactive environment than is obtainable on PICS. Learning >PIC assembler should be trivial, as long as it's your third or better >architecture. Trying to learn ASSEMBLER concepts at the same time you >learn PIC assmebler concepts might be trying. Certainly trying to write >your first assembler routine on home-designed HW, where each iteration >involves erasing and reprogramming some chip is an activity akin to a >punched-card environment - very unpleasant. I don't know if the assorted >simulators available would be enough to help or not... agree >Does anyone make a simulator where you can "connect" simmulated high level >peripherals to your simulated device? simulated async terminals, simulated >LCD displays, simulated PWM meters, simulated analog circuitry ala the >basic stamp analog hacks, simulated multiplexed displays, etc, etc? Any >architecture would be interesting... Anyone have ideas about how to do >this? UMPS (Universal Microprocessore Simulator) includes PIC core and pretty much all the extrnal components you asked for. us mirror http://sistudio.com/umps antti http://avrbasic.com -- AVR Basic Compiler http://sistudio.com/bswfe -- Basic Stamp Windows Front End

1997\10\09@012053 by Mike Keitz

On Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:25:51 -0500 "Jonathan M. Newport" <EraseMEjnewportspam_OUTTakeThisOuTMAIL.ORION.ORG> writes: >Thank you all for your responses to my seemingly endless list of >questions, but I do have a few more... when I do get a programmer, >(which >I think I may end up getteing that PIC-1a kit from ITU) should I get >that >begining book, easy pic'n (or something like that) and I do believe >that >it only teaches to program in assembly (correct me if I'm wrong on >that). >Should I use a c compiler for the pic, picbasic, or what? I know >assembly >is VERY hard to learn (according to my physics teacher) and I really >don't >know any other language besides Pbasic and my calculator's language >(which >I'm told is like c). I am more than willing to learn any language >though. >So, what do you recommend? All my PIC programs are in Microchip assembler. The PIC works a lot like a programmable calculator, it can do about 20 different operations one thing at a time. So it isn't that hard to understand Programming in assembler helps to fully understand what the PIC is doing so you know how to get the most out of it. I haven't seen the "Easy Pic-n" book. Everything I know (about PICs) I learned from the Microchip books and the PICLIST. Assembler doesn't directly do things like numbers larger than 8 bits, or multiply and divide, send serial, etc. These require a sequence of assembler instructions. But that has already been done by others and you can lift their routines and paste them into your program. If you have a lot of large-number math or a lot of different conditional operations like a complex user interface then a compiler would be helpful. Most of my projects use small numbers, simple user interface, but precise timing. Using assembler, exactly how long each operation will take can be determined. The simulator included with MPLAB is good for testing things like math routines; set up input values in RAM, simulate, and examine the final values. Projects which are mainly I/O are best tested in a live circuit with a real PIC. Breaking the project down into small stages and testing each one individually, I can get results reasonably quickly.

1997\10\09@050748 by Ian Cameron

[ snip ] > > I'm told is like c). I am more than willing to learn any language > > though. > > So, what do you recommend? > > [ snip ] > Apparently I have some sort of learning disability, because trying to > learn C gives me fits! For some reason, the language syntax just doesn't > make sense to me, but I'm obviously the odd one on this. Me too :) I've been trying to learn C for ages, but it's incredably difficult. The syntax and rules are enough to drive you mad ! Assembler may be tedious/time consuming to implement if you have a lot to do, but for me it's far more obvious what's going on than C. It would seem that every man and his dog knows how to program in C, which makes it all the more frustrating ! Funnily enough, I went onto IRC #c to ask a quick question a few days ago, as no one else was here (evening). I said if only C was as obvious as assembler, and they thought I was joking ! To the original poster, I would say learn assembler, it's really not that difficult. Once you have learned the basics of assembler it's quite easy to use on any architecture. The PIC is probably a good starter, due to the reduced instruction set and number of addressing modes. Cheers, Ian.

1997\10\09@065950 by Steve Baldwin

> > Apparently I have some sort of learning disability, because trying to > > learn C gives me fits! For some reason, the language syntax just doesn't > > make sense to me, but I'm obviously the odd one on this. > > Me too :) I've been trying to learn C for ages, but it's incredably > difficult. The syntax and rules are enough to drive you mad ! Perhaps you are approaching it with the wrong mindset. I like C because I can still think with the same braincells I use with assembler. Unlike Pascal and Modula-2, where I approach a problem differently. Stop thinking of C as a high level language and treat it as assembler with curly braces. If you understand indirect addressing, jump tables and all those other assembler things, you can mentally translate the C statements into what is actually happening. For example. All the books make out that beginners can't understand pointers but if you think of char *TEXT as TEXT: DB 'My string', 0 then TEXT has some meaning. You know that TEXT is the address of the 'M' and that if you increment it, it will be the address of (point to) the 'y'. None of this applies to C for Windows programming, where Bill has decided to change the effect of the '=' sign and a few other subtle gotchas. Steve. ====================================================== Very funny Scotty. Now beam down my clothes. ====================================================== Steve Baldwin Electronic Product Design TLA Microsystems Ltd Microcontroller Specialists PO Box 15-680 email: stevebspam_OUTkcbbs.gen.nz New Lynn, Auckland ph +64 9 820-2221 New Zealand fax +64 9 820-1929 ======================================================

1997\10\09@082924 by Andrew Warren

Steve Baldwin <@spam@PICLISTKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote: > For example. All the books make out that beginners can't understand > pointers but if you think of > > char *TEXT > as > TEXT: DB 'My string', 0 > > then TEXT has some meaning. You know that TEXT is the address of the > 'M' and that if you increment it, it will be the address of (point > to) the 'y'. Steve: I'm sure that you understand the concept of pointers, but your example -- not to put too fine a point on it -- sucks. In your C statement, "*text" is a VARIABLE, but in your assembly statement, "TEXT" is a CONSTANT... You CAN"T "increment it", and it DOESN'T "point to the 'y'". A more accurate example, if you really do want to point to a constant array of characters stored in the PIC's program-space, might be: Think of: char *text; text = "My string"; as equivalent to: TEXT EQU [any register] LOOKUP: MOVWF PC STRING: DT 'My string', 0 MOVLW STRING MOVWF TEXT And think of: char x; x = *text; as equivalent to: X EQU [any register] MOVF TEXT,W CALL LOOKUP MOVWF X This example, of course, is subject to a few restrictions having to do with the placement of the "STRING" table in memory... If you wanted to show an example that dealt with character arrays in RAM, it would be: Think of: char *text; char string[] = "My string"; text = string; as equivalent to: TEXT EQU [any register] STRING EQU TEXT+1 MOVLW "M" MOVWF STRING MOVLW "y" MOVLW STRING+1 .... MOVLW "n" MOVWF STRING+7 MOVLW "g" MOVWF STRING+8 MOVLW 0 MOVWF STRING+9 MOVLW STRING MOVWF TEXT And think of: char x; x = *text; as equivalent to: X EQU [any register] MOVF TEXT,W MOVWF FSR MOVF INDF,W MOVWF X -Andy === Andrew Warren - KILLspamfastfwdKILLspamix.netcom.com === Fast Forward Engineering - Vista, California === http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499

1997\10\09@105236 by lilel

> Should I use a c compiler for the > pic, picbasic, or what? I know assembly is VERY hard to learn > (according to my physics teacher) and I really don't know any other > language besides Pbasic and my calculator's language (which I'm told > is like c). I am more than willing to learn any language though. > So, what do you recommend? > > sincerely > > Jonathan Assembler, definitely. Once I set out to teach someone carpentry. I gave them a hand saw. Then a hammer. Then much later a power saw. Most of the people on this list IMHO probably started with assembler. Later, they probably discovered C and said "Wow, this is much more productive NOW THAT I ALREADY KNOW HOW TO USE THE MOST BASIC TOOL" Even if you know C, you will probably end up needing to write some of your own functions or hand-tune the code, in assembler. If you are going to engineer a production quantity product, you need assembler. On the other hand, if you are going to build a couple of simple projects as a hobby, and never do this for a living, get a PIC Basic kit and program in basic. I started learning assembler as a hobby. Fourteen months later I was doing it for a living. I wish I had studied it fifteen years earlier. Best Regards, Lawrence Lile

1997\10\09@110231 by lilel

> Should I use a c compiler for the > pic, picbasic, or what? I know assembly is VERY hard to learn > (according to my physics teacher) and I really don't know any other > language besides Pbasic and my calculator's language (which I'm told > is like c). So far I tally NO votes for C, 5 votes for assembler. Best Regards, Lawrence Lile

1997\10\09@124053 by jorgegf

Hi MR. Stupid newbie The questions are never stupid, they may be more or less ignorant but never stupid, everybody started somewere and I don't think anybody did it from the top. ... > Thank you all for your responses to my seemingly endless list of > questions, but I do have a few more... when I do get a programmer, (which > I think I may end up getteing that PIC-1a kit from ITU) should I get that > begining book, easy pic'n (or something like that) and I do believe that > it only teaches to program in assembly (correct me if I'm wrong on that). > Should I use a c compiler for the pic, picbasic, or what? I know assembly > is VERY hard to learn (according to my physics teacher) and I really don't ... Assembly is not that dificult, and with only 33 instructions its pretty easy. By your previous messages I understand that you like electronics and already have some knowledge on that area. So PIC assembly can't be too dificult for someone like you (ASM is more dificult for people who have no knowledge about hardware). And on the other and ASM really gives you a full control, and helps you to fully undestand all the capabilities of the PIC. Best regards Jorge F (another newbie in the PICLIST)

1997\10\09@124101 by jorgegf

Hi folks ... > it only teaches to program in assembly (correct me if I'm wrong on that). > Should I use a c compiler for the pic, picbasic, or what? I know assembly > is VERY hard to learn (according to my physics teacher) and I really don't > know any other language besides Pbasic and my calculator's language (which ... Just after my previous message on the subject (where I vote for ASM :-) ), I remenbered that a friend of mine as a vary interesting book (looks to me) on the subject and I asked im for the coordinates of the book, its as follows: A beginers guide to the Microchip PIC by: Niggel Gardner distributed by: Farnell (UK) http://www.farnell.com This guys also have a lot of PIC related hardware, and its quite unnexpensive. I think it might help you, as it is a step by step aproach to a PIC based project, covering all the steps from the initial idea to the hardware project, PIC selection, program development and test, etc. to the final product. This IS NOT an ASM manual, its more like a project manual, but together with the PIC datasheets and MPLAB (you can download it for free along with the datasheets from http://www.microship.com) makes a good testing and learning environment. best regards Jorge F

1997\10\09@130930 by Bob Buege

In a message dated 97-10-09 09:13:27 EDT, you write: > The worst > part is the handycap most of us suffer from ... 10 fingers. If we had 16 > fingers, HEX would be a lot easier. But with your HP in HEX mode, you'll > have no problems. > The reason we're stuck with the decimal system is that many centurys ago our ancestors mistakenly thought that God had given us ten fingers as an indication that we should use base 10. In actuality God really intended for us to think of each hand as one nibble of an 8 bit byte with the four fingers representing the bits and the thumb as a carry bit. Bob

1997\10\09@135721 by John Shreffler

part 0 812 bytes -----Original Message----- From: Bob Buege [SMTP:RemoveMEBobBuegeTakeThisOuTAOL.COM] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 1997 12:57 PM To: spamBeGonePICLISTspamBeGoneMITVMA.MIT.EDU Subject: Re: another q from the stupid newbie In a message dated 97-10-09 09:13:27 EDT, you write: > The worst > part is the handycap most of us suffer from ... 10 fingers. If we had 16 > fingers, HEX would be a lot easier. But with your HP in HEX mode, you'll > have no problems. > The reason we're stuck with the decimal system is that many centurys ago our ancestors mistakenly thought that God had given us ten fingers as an indication that we should use base 10. In actuality God really intended for us to think of each hand as one nibble of an 8 bit byte with the four fingers representing the bits and the thumb as a carry bit. Bob

1997\10\09@140520 by David Gould

> > Why would there be two carrys? Maybe the left thumb is > the borrow, and the right thumb is the carry. "Digit" carry of course. -dg David Gould TakeThisOuTdgEraseMEspam_OUTillustra.com 510.628.3783 or 510.305.9468 Informix Software (formerly Illustra) 300 Lakeside Drive Oakland, CA 94612 - A child of five could understand this! Fetch me a child of five.

1997\10\09@142033 by John Payson

> The reason we're stuck with the decimal system is that many centurys ago our > ancestors mistakenly thought that God had given us ten fingers as an > indication that we should use base 10. In actuality God really intended for > us to think of each hand as one nibble of an 8 bit byte with the four fingers > representing the bits and the thumb as a carry bit. > Why would there be two carrys? Maybe the left thumb is > the borrow, and the right thumb is the carry. The right thumb is the half-carry bit. Though if there's no use for base 10 I suppose half-carry isn't all that useful... Actually, I personally usually use my hands to count to 100: the ten digits have values: 10 10 10 10 50 5 1 1 1 1

1997\10\09@142308 by jorgegf

... Andrew Warren wrote: > > Steve Baldwin <RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote: > ... {Quote hidden}> > > Think of: > > char *text; > char string[] = "My string"; > > text = string; > > as equivalent to: > > TEXT EQU [any register] > STRING EQU TEXT+1 > > MOVLW "M" > MOVWF STRING > MOVLW "y" > MOVLW STRING+1 > .... > MOVLW "n" > MOVWF STRING+7 > MOVLW "g" > MOVWF STRING+8 > MOVLW 0 > MOVWF STRING+9 > > MOVLW STRING > MOVWF TEXT > ... I've seen better ways of creating an initialized variable. I also like 'C' and do have a lot of practice at it (as in writing a real-time preemptive multitasking kernel running on an 8086 to use as an embedded operating system), but i think that for really explore and control such a device as a PIC you better get a solid knowledge of ASM. Best regards Jorge F

1997\10\09@150016 by William Chops Westfield

Most of the people on this list IMHO probably started with assembler. Later, they probably discovered C and said "Wow, this is much more productive NOW THAT I ALREADY KNOW HOW TO USE THE MOST BASIC TOOL" heh. My high level friends were talking about a similar problem the other day. Seem there are two kinds of bad c++ programmers - those that knew C before they learned C++, and those that DIDN't know c before C++... BillW

1997\10\09@150604 by Martin R. Green

On Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:06:53 +0000, you wrote: >[ snip ] >> > I'm told is like c). I am more than willing to learn any language >> > though. >> > So, what do you recommend? >> > >[ snip ] >> Apparently I have some sort of learning disability, because trying to >> learn C gives me fits! For some reason, the language syntax just doesn't >> make sense to me, but I'm obviously the odd one on this. Yep, you are. C actually has very few syntactical rules, and in my experience, I can look at a block of C code and know immediately what is going on. A similar block of assembler usually takes me a little while to figure out. {Quote hidden}> >Me too :) I've been trying to learn C for ages, but it's incredably >difficult. The syntax and rules are enough to drive you mad ! > >Assembler may be tedious/time consuming to implement if you have a >lot to do, but for me it's far more obvious what's going on than C. >It would seem that every man and his dog knows how to program in C, >which makes it all the more frustrating ! > >Funnily enough, I went onto IRC #c to ask a quick question a few days >ago, as no one else was here (evening). I said if only C was as >obvious as assembler, and they thought I was joking ! > That's because most people find ANY high level language easier to read than assembler. It doesn't help any that many assembler programmers make only a token effort to make their code readable and logical. Of course, that used to be the complaint levelled against C programmers, but most C developers I know today have learned some discipline. Assembler is still the Wild West, in many ways. > >To the original poster, I would say learn assembler, it's really not >that difficult. Once you have learned the basics of assembler it's >quite easy to use on any architecture. The PIC is probably a good >starter, due to the reduced instruction set and number of addressing >modes. > >Cheers, Ian. I don't mean to ridicule you for not grokking C, just pointing out that, yes, you are in the minority thinking that assembler is easier. Martin R. Green elimarEraseME.....bigfoot.com PS. I develop PIC code in assembler and C, and PC code in everything >from assembler to C to PowerBuilder to...

1997\10\09@165753 by Steve Baldwin

>> Apparently I have some sort of learning disability, because trying to >> learn C gives me fits! For some reason, the language syntax just doesn't >> make sense to me, but I'm obviously the odd one on this. > Yep, you are. C actually has very few syntactical rules, and in my > experience, I can look at a block of C code and know immediately what > is going on. A similar block of assembler usually takes me a little > while to figure out. Having few rules is both C's major advantage and disadvantage. Once you are proficient with the language, you get the benefit of being able to do exactly what you want. While learning, it makes life difficult. I would suggest that in the case of C, learning by looking at examples needs to be done with some qualification. For example, looking at GCC or Linux sources would be a bad idea. The people writing these are (usually) very familiar with both the language and the compiler and will extract the most out of it, at the expense of being easy to follow. Beginner books go to the other extreme. The code is short and simple and achieves a single result. But often there is only a single example. I would buy a copy of K&R (or Harbison & Steele) as this has the definitions for the language. Then head down to the library and get as many beginner books as you can. Hopefully they will have slightly different approaches in their examples and the differences are what you learn from. Steve. ====================================================== Very funny Scotty. Now beam down my clothes. ====================================================== Steve Baldwin Electronic Product Design TLA Microsystems Ltd Microcontroller Specialists PO Box 15-680 email: EraseMEstevebkcbbs.gen.nz New Lynn, Auckland ph +64 9 820-2221 New Zealand fax +64 9 820-1929 ======================================================

1997\10\09@171102 by Andrew Warren

I wrote: > MOVLW "M" ;Fill registers STRING through STRING+9 with > MOVWF STRING ;the string "'My string',0". > MOVLW "y" > MOVLW STRING+1 > .... > MOVLW "n" > MOVWF STRING+7 > MOVLW "g" > MOVWF STRING+8 > MOVLW 0 > MOVWF STRING+9 and Jorge Ferreira <RemoveMEjorgegfEraseMEEraseMEmail.telepac.pt> replied: > I've seen better ways of creating an initialized variable. Put your money where your mouth is, Jorge. My example does it in twenty instructions and twenty cycles... Twenty bucks says that you can't do it faster or shorter. -Andy === Andrew Warren - RemoveMEfastfwdspam_OUTKILLspamix.netcom.com === Fast Forward Engineering - Vista, California === http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499

1997\10\09@171301 by Martin R. Green

When I first learned C over 15 years ago, I got from help from a freeware tutorial I found on a local BBS. It had about thirty lessons, or mini programs, starting of course with "Hello World". (Actually I lie, the first lesson was an empty shell program, lesson two was 'Hello world'). Anyway, times have changed, and now we have the Web. I'm sure you can find a tutorial, probably online, somewhere on the Web (although I haven't looked). Try a search on "C tutorial" or something like that. CIAO - Martin R. Green RemoveMEelimarTakeThisOuTspambigfoot.com On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:03:04 +1300, Steve Baldwin <EraseMEstevebspamspamBeGoneKCBBS.GEN.NZ> wrote: {Quote hidden}>>> Apparently I have some sort of learning disability, because trying to >>> learn C gives me fits! For some reason, the language syntax just doesn't >>> make sense to me, but I'm obviously the odd one on this. > >> Yep, you are. C actually has very few syntactical rules, and in my >> experience, I can look at a block of C code and know immediately what >> is going on. A similar block of assembler usually takes me a little >> while to figure out. > >Having few rules is both C's major advantage and disadvantage. >Once you are proficient with the language, you get the benefit of being >able to do exactly what you want. >While learning, it makes life difficult. > >I would suggest that in the case of C, learning by looking at examples >needs to be done with some qualification. >For example, looking at GCC or Linux sources would be a bad idea. The >people writing these are (usually) very familiar with both the language and >the compiler and will extract the most out of it, at the expense of being >easy to follow. > >Beginner books go to the other extreme. The code is short and simple and >achieves a single result. But often there is only a single example. I would >buy a copy of K&R (or Harbison & Steele) as this has the definitions for >the language. Then head down to the library and get as many beginner books >as you can. >Hopefully they will have slightly different approaches in their examples >and the differences are what you learn from. > >Steve. > >====================================================== > Very funny Scotty. Now beam down my clothes. >====================================================== >Steve Baldwin Electronic Product Design >TLA Microsystems Ltd Microcontroller Specialists >PO Box 15-680 email: RemoveMEstevebKILLspamkcbbs.gen.nz >New Lynn, Auckland ph +64 9 820-2221 >New Zealand fax +64 9 820-1929 >======================================================

1997\10\09@180337 by Shane Nelson

> > Anyway, times have changed, and now we have the Web. I'm sure you can > find a tutorial, probably online, somewhere on the Web (although I > haven't looked). Try a search on "C tutorial" or something like that. > I have one on my web page... have never used it myself though, so I can't say if it's any good as a tutorial. http://www.spots.ab.ca/~i/c/ .scn

1997\10\09@185111 by Andrew Warren

Martin R. Green <PICLISTSTOPspamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote: > I'm sure you can find a tutorial, probably online, somewhere on the > Web (although I haven't looked). Try a search on "C tutorial" or > something like that. Martin & Steve: The Coronado C tutorial isn't too bad... You can find it at: www.simtel.net/pub/simtelnet/msdos/c/gencsrc.zip http://www.simtel.net/pub/simtelnet/msdos/c/genctxt.zip -Andy === Andrew Warren - spamBeGonefastfwdSTOPspamEraseMEix.netcom.com === Fast Forward Engineering - Vista, California === http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499

1997\10\09@190916 by Herbert Graf

-----Original Message----- From: Lawrence Lile <KILLspamlilelspamBeGoneTOASTMASTER.COM> To: EraseMEPICLISTEraseMEMITVMA.MIT.EDU <@spam@PICLIST@spam@spam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU> Date: Thursday, October 09, 1997 11:06 Subject: Re: another q from the stupid newbie >> Should I use a c compiler for the >> pic, picbasic, or what? I know assembly is VERY hard to learn >> (according to my physics teacher) and I really don't know any other >> language besides Pbasic and my calculator's language (which I'm told >> is like c). > > >So far I tally NO votes for C, 5 votes for assembler. For me you can put me down for assembler, don't get me wrong, for the PC I love C, but for the PIC I like assembler much more, might be harder, but it is fun! :) TTYL

1997\10\09@191327 by Herbert Graf

-----Original Message----- From: David Gould <spamBeGonedgKILLspamILLUSTRA.COM> To: .....PICLISTspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU <TakeThisOuTPICLIST.....TakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU> Date: Thursday, October 09, 1997 14:09 Subject: Re: another q from the stupid newbie >> >> Why would there be two carrys? Maybe the left thumb is >> the borrow, and the right thumb is the carry. > >"Digit" carry of course. Sorry for my ignorance, but what is the difference between normal carry and digit carry? Can you give me an example of the difference. TTYL

1997\10\09@212759 by Tony Dickinson

At 16:58 09/10/97 +0100, Jorge Ferreira wrote: >Hi MR. Stupid newbie > >The questions are never stupid, they may be more or less ignorant but >never stupid, everybody started somewere and I don't think anybody did >it from the top. The only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. I'm another newbie (or rather a wannabee!) at this game but I have been messing with computers for a long time - 30 years come January - I started in assembler on IBM compatible mainframes and honestly assembler is NOT difficult - laborious maybe! tony - From a sunny and marginally less soggy Somerset, England. -- Mail - TakeThisOuTajd3KILLspamspamtutor.open.ac.uk | URL - http://cszx.open.ac.uk/~ajd3/ Tsar - "Winning isn't everything!" Kyzer - "Nah! - But it's the ONLY thing that matters mate!"

1997\10\10@010637 by tjaart

Jorge Ferreira wrote: > > Hi MR. Stupid newbie > > The questions are never stupid, they may be more or less ignorant but > never stupid, everybody started somewere and I don't think anybody did > it from the top. No newbie can ask stupid questions, but experts may offer stupid answers. -- Friendly Regards Tjaart van der Walt .....tjaartRemoveMEwasp.co.za _____________________________________________________________ | WASP International http://www.wasp.co.za/~tjaart/index.html | | R&D Engineer : GSM peripheral services development | | Vehicle tracking | Telemetry systems | GSM data transfer | | Voice : +27-(0)11-622-8686 | Fax : +27-(0)11-622-8973 | | WGS-84 : 26010.52'S 28006.19'E | |_____________________________________________________________|

1997\10\10@070823 by Mike Smith

-----Original Message----- From: Lawrence Lile <RemoveMElilelspamBeGonetoastmaster.com> To: spamBeGonePICLIST@spam@spam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU <TakeThisOuTPICLISTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU> Date: Friday, 10 October 1997 0:33 Subject: Re: another q from the stupid newbie >> Should I use a c compiler for the >> pic, picbasic, or what? I know assembly is VERY hard to learn >> (according to my physics teacher) and I really don't know any other >> language besides Pbasic and my calculator's language (which I'm told >> is like c). > > >So far I tally NO votes for C, 5 votes for assembler. I'd say - Learn C first, but on a PC. Then learn the asm of choice, and use it and c together for production. Advantages: It teaches *programming* first - before bad habits get ingrained using assembly. Doesn't have to be C, any structured procedural language would do - but C is the high level lingo of choice for microcontrollers. MikeS <mikesmith_ozEraseMErelaymail.net>

1997\10\10@071013 by Mike Smith

-----Original Message----- From: Steve Baldwin <RemoveMEstevebEraseMEspam_OUTKCBBS.GEN.NZ> To: @spam@PICLISTRemoveMEEraseMEMITVMA.MIT.EDU <EraseMEPICLIST@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU> Date: Thursday, 9 October 1997 20:30 Subject: Re: another q from the stupid newbie <snip> >None of this applies to C for Windows programming, where Bill has decided >to change the >effect of the '=' sign and a few other subtle gotchas. No, you got it wrong. Its Fortran thats famous for redefining 0 <g> MikeS <@spam@mikesmith_ozspam_OUT.....relaymail.net>

1997\10\10@091549 by Andy Kunz

>in assembler on IBM compatible mainframes and honestly assembler is NOT >difficult - laborious maybe! Especially with ASSIST! Andy ================================================================== Andy Kunz - Montana Design - 409 S 6th St - Phillipsburg, NJ 08865 Hardware & Software for Industry & R/C Hobbies "Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!" ==================================================================

1997\10\10@165004 by Perry Scott

On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, John Payson wrote: > > > Why would there be two carrys? Maybe the left thumb is > > the borrow, and the right thumb is the carry. > > The right thumb is the half-carry bit. Though if there's no use for base 10 > I suppose half-carry isn't all that useful... > > Actually, I personally usually use my hands to count to 100: the ten digits > have values: > 10 10 10 10 50 5 1 1 1 1 > Why stop there? Goto 1024. 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 hummm, where have I seen that before.

1997\10\10@180220 by John Payson

> > The right thumb is the half-carry bit. Though if there's no use for base 10 > > I suppose half-carry isn't all that useful... > > > > Actually, I personally usually use my hands to count to 100: the ten digits > > have values: > > 10 10 10 10 50 5 1 1 1 1 > > Why stop there? Goto 1024. > > 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 > > hummm, where have I seen that before. The problem is that human physiology does not allow all 1024 states to be represented with equal ease. Assuming that a bent figure is "low" and an extended finger is "high", even counting up to two is hard; 10 and 26 are horrible [25: thumb, index finger, and pinkie are extended. To go to 26, bend the pinkie while extending the ring finger. On most people's hands, this is very awkward.] By contrast, the base-100 scheme above allows the fingers to be extended in easy sequence (index finger first), and the only combined bend/extend move is extending the thumb while bending everything else (easy).

1997\10\11@101448 by paulb

My vote for Assembler. Studied on the PDP-8, learnt on the 6502, most experienced with the 6809 doing O/S re-writes. Seems many people don't follow how powerful MACRO assembly is. Macro coding is to assembly what assember is to hand-coding. I can "C" the advantages of higher level languages, FORTH isn't dead by any means (it just doesn't translate to PIC well but on a 6809/ 11/ 000, which are true FORTH engines, WOW!), but you can FEEL what you're doing with assembler. Jonathan M. Newport wrote: > Should I use a c compiler for the pic, picbasic, or what? I know > assembly is VERY hard to learn (according to my physics teacher) DId someone say, an "assembler-challenged Physics teacher"? > and I really don't know any other language besides Pbasic and my > calculator's language (which I'm told is like c). I am more than > willing to learn any language though. > So, what do you recommend? Cheers, Paul B.

1997\10\11@110427 by Mike Smith

-----Original Message----- From: Andy Kunz <spamBeGonemontanaEraseMEFAST.NET> To: PICLISTspamBeGoneMITVMA.MIT.EDU <RemoveMEPICLIST@spam@spamBeGoneMITVMA.MIT.EDU> Date: Friday, 10 October 1997 22:47 Subject: Re: another q from the stupid newbie >>in assembler on IBM compatible mainframes and honestly assembler is NOT >>difficult - laborious maybe! > >Especially with ASSIST! > Reminisces... A lot of ppl knock Windows, but I wonder if anyone misses Edlin? (or Recover) Debug was nice... MikeS <.....mikesmith_oz@spam@EraseMErelaymail.net>

1997\10\12@110352 by jorgegf

Hi Andy ... Andrew Warren wrote: {Quote hidden}> > I wrote: > > > MOVLW "M" ;Fill registers STRING through STRING+9 with > > MOVWF STRING ;the string "'My string',0". > > MOVLW "y" > > MOVLW STRING+1 > > .... > > MOVLW "n" > > MOVWF STRING+7 > > MOVLW "g" > > MOVWF STRING+8 > > MOVLW 0 > > MOVWF STRING+9 > > and Jorge Ferreira <.....jorgegfRemoveMEmail.telepac.pt> replied: > > > I've seen better ways of creating an initialized variable. > > Put your money where your mouth is, Jorge. > > My example does it in twenty instructions and twenty cycles... > Twenty bucks says that you can't do it faster or shorter. > > -Andy ... ??? Who about: DB msg1 "My string",0 I've using this kind of construct for years! Or am I missing something here; isn't this allowed on PIC programming ? Best regards Jorge F

1997\10\12@153428 by Andrew Warren

Jorge Ferreira <.....jorgegfSTOPspam@spam@mail.telepac.pt> wrote: > Who about: > DB msg1 "My string",0 > > I've using this kind of construct for years! Or am I missing > something here; isn't this allowed on PIC programming ? Jorge: Sure, it's allowed... But it doesn't do what my code does. In fact, it doesn't do anything particularly useful at all, unless you're using a PIC17Cxx. "DB" stores the string in the PIC's program space; my code stored the string in the PIC's registers. If you wanted to store the string in the program space, you could do so using the "DT" directive. The code to access the string would involve direct modifications of the PIC's program-counter... If you go back and re-read the first half of my message to which you replied, you'll see that I gave an example of program-space string storage that does precisely that. -Andy === Andrew Warren - fastfwdEraseME@spam@ix.netcom.com === Fast Forward Engineering - Vista, California === http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499

1997\10\12@204725 by Rob Whitney

At 12:56 PM 10/9/97 -0400, you wrote: >In a message dated 97-10-09 09:13:27 EDT, you write: > >> The worst >> part is the handycap most of us suffer from ... 10 fingers. If we had 16 >> fingers, HEX would be a lot easier. But with your HP in HEX mode, you'll >> have no problems. >> >The reason we're stuck with the decimal system is that many centurys ago our >ancestors mistakenly thought that God had given us ten fingers as an >indication that we should use base 10. In actuality God really intended for >us to think of each hand as one nibble of an 8 bit byte with the four fingers >representing the bits and the thumb as a carry bit. > >Bob > Bob, Actually, to elaborate a bit on my initial comments as extracted above, the original numbering system was created by prehistoric man, prior to the invention of the loincloth. At that time, a base-eleven system was used. With the invention of the loincloth, the 11th digit was no longer easily visible, so was relegated to its present status as a "sign bit". Due to anatomical limitations, the female of the species never was able to master the base-11 system. When attempting to do so, the MSbit was always read as 0. I'm just grateful that the early development of shoe technology precluded the introduction of a base-20 (or base 21?) numbering system. Rob (Trust me, it's a fact) Whitney

1997\10\12@230025 by Michael Coop (pjm)

Actually, to elaborate a bit on my initial comments as extracted above, the original numbering system was created by prehistoric man, prior to the invention of the loincloth. At that time, a base-eleven system was used. With the invention of the loincloth, the 11th digit was no longer easily visible, so was relegated to its present status as a "sign bit". Due to anatomical limitations, the female of the species never was able to master the base-11 system. When attempting to do so, the MSbit was always read as 0. I have a problem here... if the 11th bit is sign bit, then I can't see where it came from as the current 'standard' defines the SET condition indicating a negative value... Around my area, setting the 11th bit definitely results in positive results. I'm just grateful that the early development of shoe technology precluded the introduction of a base-20 (or base 21?) numbering system. It depends on your tendencies... ! Rob (Trust me, it's a fact) Whitney

1997\10\13@172907 by jorgegf

Hi Andrew (and the rest of you too :-) ) Yeah, you're right. I still froget the split address areas of the PIC, and the way it uses internal RAM. I'm more used to a single addressing area like (8085 or Z80) were we share the same addressing space bettwen Program, Data and Stack. Althought my remark was more kiding than other thing, I own you an apologie (and 20 bucs), sorry I didn't make sure my brain was in gear before I engaged my mouth. best regards Jorge F Andrew Warren wrote: {Quote hidden}> > Jorge Ferreira <RemoveMEjorgegfspamBeGonemail.telepac.pt> wrote: > > > Who about: > > DB msg1 "My string",0 > > > > I've using this kind of construct for years! Or am I missing > > something here; isn't this allowed on PIC programming ? > > Jorge: > > Sure, it's allowed... But it doesn't do what my code does. In fact, > it doesn't do anything particularly useful at all, unless you're > using a PIC17Cxx. > > "DB" stores the string in the PIC's program space; my code stored the > string in the PIC's registers. > > If you wanted to store the string in the program space, you could do > so using the "DT" directive. The code to access the string would > involve direct modifications of the PIC's program-counter... If you > go back and re-read the first half of my message to which you > replied, you'll see that I gave an example of program-space string > storage that does precisely that. > > -Andy > > === Andrew Warren - spamBeGonefastfwdKILLspam@spam@ix.netcom.com > === Fast Forward Engineering - Vista, California > === http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2499

1997\10\14@233401 by Greg Newberry

Mike Smith wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Kunz <montanaspam_OUT@spam@FAST.NET> > To: spamBeGonePICLIST@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <RemoveMEPICLISTEraseMEKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU> > Date: Friday, 10 October 1997 22:47 > Subject: Re: another q from the stupid newbie > > >>in assembler on IBM compatible mainframes and honestly assembler is NOT > >>difficult - laborious maybe! > > > >Especially with ASSIST! > > > > Reminisces... A lot of ppl knock Windows, but I wonder if anyone misses > Edlin? (or Recover) > Debug was nice... > > MikeS > <spamBeGonemikesmith_ozspam_OUTRemoveMErelaymail.net> Recover!!! I've had a few clients RECOVER their entire Hard Disk. Hard too explain to them what happened. They didn't care! Just everything was gone. Greg -- ------------------------------------------------- | Greg Newberry .....newberryRemoveMEcyberhighway.net | | WB7DUO QRP-L #760 | | NorCal #1899 CQC #465 AR-QRP #65 | -------------------------------------------------

1997\10\15@182950 by Mike Smith

-----Original Message----- From: Greg Newberry <newberry@spam@CYBERHIGHWAY.NET> To: EraseMEPICLISTRemoveMESTOPspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU <RemoveMEPICLISTKILLspamTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU> Date: Wednesday, 15 October 1997 13:05 Subject: Re: another q from the stupid newbie {Quote hidden}>Mike Smith wrote: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andy Kunz <spamBeGonemontana@spam@FAST.NET> >> To: RemoveMEPICLISTspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU <PICLISTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU> >> Date: Friday, 10 October 1997 22:47 >> Subject: Re: another q from the stupid newbie >> >> >>in assembler on IBM compatible mainframes and honestly assembler is NOT >> >>difficult - laborious maybe! >> > >> >Especially with ASSIST! >> > >> >> Reminisces... A lot of ppl knock Windows, but I wonder if anyone misses >> Edlin? (or Recover) >> Debug was nice... >> >> MikeS >> <spam_OUTmikesmith_ozspam_OUTspam_OUTrelaymail.net> >Recover!!! I've had a few clients RECOVER their entire Hard Disk. Hard >too explain to them what happened. They didn't care! Just everything was >gone. > Yech! I think the worst I did was a floppy, just to experiment. I wondered why my comment didn't provoke more responses... MikeS <mikesmith_ozspam_OUTrelaymail.net>

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1997 , 1998 only
- Today
- New search...