8 bit microcontroller market
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: Tiny Bootloader
Next: Link&Locate 86?
From: Ulf Samuelsson on 15 Sep 2006 14:28 > >>>>In a user interface for a product sold in many countries, the most >>>>important thing is how to handle the peculiarities of each language. >>>>An assembler with a good macro preprocessor is much more usable than >>>>the primitive C preprocessor. >>> >>>The peculiar user interface is the job of the resource compiler. This has >>>nothing to do neither with C no with assembler. >> >> Resource compiler ? Is this some Microsoft specific product ? > > Not necessarily. This is a general paradigm. > The user interface is not the part of the code, but a pack of data to be > plugged into the menu driver. The development of the user interface is > separated from the development of the code. > It is an act of purist optimism to expect an assembler programmer to know or use a resource compiler. -- Best Regards, Ulf Samuelsson This is intended to be my personal opinion which may, or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB
From: Everett M. Greene on 14 Sep 2006 23:33 Joerg <notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net> writes: > > >> The user interface of a microwave oven is already too complicated to > >> be developed in asm... > > > > The best UI I've used on a microwave was a spring-loaded dial with > > regular markings up to 20 minutes at full CCW. Just turn the dial past > > zero with the door shut and the magnetron nukes the food. > > Yes! And it produces a nice sounding "bing" instead of an ugly "meeeep" > from some stressed out piezo. Mine has the extra added attraction of "meeeeping" four times each time instead of three. And it will keep doing it every so often if you don't respond. > > No assembly, C, state machines, or RTOS required. Maybe my > > microwaving needs are too primitive? > > > > According to Yuriy most consumer needs appear to be primitive. Somebody didn't get mine quite right in that it's possible to open the door without the unit stopping if the door is opened just as the timer counts to zero. Very repeatable.
From: Ian Bell on 15 Sep 2006 15:16 Walter Banks wrote: > > For what its worth there was about 60K of code in that particular > microwave oven. Before someone says it should have been written in > assembler, I should point out that most of the code was country specific > user interfaces, user safety and indirect measurements of the oven > contents so food would not have their molecules changed on the outside and > raw on the inside. > Presumably much of that was data rather than code. I developed many label printers. The simplest had 16K of ROM of which 12K was font data. The Chinese version had a little more code and 1 Mbyte of font data. Ian
From: Ian Bell on 15 Sep 2006 15:21 Didi wrote: > Ian Bell wrote: >> Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: >> >> >> > The user interface of a microwave oven is already too complicated to be >> > developed in asm... >> > >> >> rubbish. >> >> Ian > > Why, anything can be too complicated for development in whatever > language. Indeed it can but that is not the point. First a microwave UI is not complicated. Second I take issue with the contention that complexity is better handled by C than assembler. Ian
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 15 Sep 2006 15:22
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:28:51 +0200, "Ulf Samuelsson" <ulf(a)a-t-m-e-l.com> wrote: >>>>>In a user interface for a product sold in many countries, the most >>>>>important thing is how to handle the peculiarities of each language. >>>>>An assembler with a good macro preprocessor is much more usable than >>>>>the primitive C preprocessor. >>>> >>>>The peculiar user interface is the job of the resource compiler. This has >>>>nothing to do neither with C no with assembler. >>> >>> Resource compiler ? Is this some Microsoft specific product ? >> >> Not necessarily. This is a general paradigm. >> The user interface is not the part of the code, but a pack of data to be >> plugged into the menu driver. The development of the user interface is >> separated from the development of the code. > >It is an act of purist optimism to expect an assembler programmer >to know or use a resource compiler. I've been writing code for Windows, since Win286 and Win386 came out, making it almost useful. I develop and have developed Windows applications for national, commercial sale in VC++, VB, and other languages and I'm an "assembler programmer," too. Both broadly speaking and in terms of having written Windows assembly code for VxDs (no resource compiler for this) and general Windows applications (using resource compilers, obviously.) I don't recommend using assembly for writing most Windows applications, unless it is your intent to gain a deep understanding of how Windows works and particularly about the messaging processes. I'm also familiar with the details of automation interfaces, type libraries and ODL, ATL, COM, marshaling and IDL, etc. So your comment sounds to me like "purist prejudice," Ulf. Jon |