Which uController to learn?
in [Design]
|
Prev: 1000V high side gate drive
Next: Micpre of Graham
From: bungalow_steve on 16 Mar 2007 18:37 On Mar 15, 4:52 pm, John E. <incogn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > PIC is king, I'm sure. But I'd like to hear from those who are using all > brands. Whichever you use, what do you like about it? What don't you like > about others? Suggestions re. learning? > > I've programmed 68000 assembly and some higher-level languages (FORTRAN; some > BASIC; COBOL if forced to admit it), so no stranger to programming, per se. > > Thanks, > -- > John English 32 bit ARM's are nice, you can get them in small 4x5 mm packages up to huge floating point versions with 256K of RAM, the small ones are a few bucks. They work very well with high level languages and the assembly is easy, you spend more time doing stuff rather then fighting with the limitations of smaller PIC's, AVR's and 8051's (bank switching, multi word math, accessing 16 bit hardware with double reads that have to be done in a certain order, etc,etc,etc all that weird goofy stuff goes away). About C, you have to realize that the majority of example code out there is in C, I hate the language myself, but I use it because it is so easy to pick up someone's elses C code and start working with that. I bought an ARM development kit recently and was up and running in a few hours (blinking LEDS, reading A/D's, and sending the data to the PC via the UART), cause they had C examples of everything, converting the A/D inputs, UART utilities, start up files etc. You have to remember the actual number of C features actually needed in a small embedded processor is very little... learn a couple while/ for loops, if statement, how to set/clear a bit and how to call a routine and what else is there? not much
From: John Barrett on 16 Mar 2007 18:52 <bungalow_steve(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1174083664.366440.223730(a)d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 15, 4:52 pm, John E. <incogn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> PIC is king, I'm sure. But I'd like to hear from those who are using all >> brands. Whichever you use, what do you like about it? What don't you like >> about others? Suggestions re. learning? >> >> I've programmed 68000 assembly and some higher-level languages (FORTRAN; >> some >> BASIC; COBOL if forced to admit it), so no stranger to programming, per >> se. >> >> Thanks, >> -- >> John English > > 32 bit ARM's are nice, you can get them in small 4x5 mm packages up to > huge floating point versions with 256K of RAM, the small ones are a > few bucks. They work very well with high level languages and the > assembly is easy, you spend more time doing stuff rather then > fighting with the limitations of smaller PIC's, AVR's and 8051's (bank > switching, multi word math, accessing 16 bit hardware with double > reads that have to be done in a certain order, etc,etc,etc all that > weird goofy stuff goes away). > > About C, you have to realize that the majority of example code out > there is in C, I hate the language myself, but I use it because it is > so easy to pick up someone's elses C code and start working with that. > I bought an ARM development kit recently and was up and running in a > few hours (blinking LEDS, reading A/D's, and sending the data to the > PC via the UART), cause they had C examples of everything, converting > the A/D inputs, UART utilities, start up files etc. > > You have to remember the actual number of C features actually needed > in a small embedded processor is very little... learn a couple while/ > for loops, if statement, how to set/clear a bit and how to call a > routine and what else is there? not much > > > OK -- I'm a late entry on this one -- but WinAVR makes everything similarly transparent for the 8 bit Atmel chips, and there is plenty of code out there written in C for the AVRs, including math libs and such (used one to do a software PID for servo motors -- worked well !!) -- best of all for me -- the compiler is free :) And like the ARM, you can ramp up to 32 bit chips with on-chip DSP and may other specialty features I personally dont care WHICH chip I use as long as I have good development tools :) I started on the 8047/8051/Z8 MANY moons ago, and I've done plenty of PIC and AVR -- I prefer the AVR chips because the development tools and community support I got were better than what I ran into for the PIC when I was getting started. (and the only FREE dev tools I could find for the the PIC were BASIC, which I put aside a coupla hundred years ago !!) They are all good chips -- make sure you got good dev tools !!
From: Eeyore on 16 Mar 2007 18:56 "bungalow_steve(a)yahoo.com" wrote: > 32 bit ARM's are nice, you can get them in small 4x5 mm packages up to > huge floating point versions with 256K of RAM, the small ones are a > few bucks. They work very well with high level languages and the > assembly is easy, you spend more time doing stuff rather then > fighting with the limitations of smaller PIC's, AVR's and 8051's (bank > switching, multi word math, accessing 16 bit hardware with double > reads that have to be done in a certain order, etc,etc,etc all that > weird goofy stuff goes away). PL/M51 handles all that goofy stuff for me. I've only once ever come across a situation with an 8051 where I'd have liked a long word btw and I use even words quite rarely. Graham
From: bungalow_steve on 17 Mar 2007 01:48 On Mar 16, 2:52 pm, "John Barrett" <ke5c...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > <bungalow_st...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1174083664.366440.223730(a)d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Mar 15, 4:52 pm, John E. <incogn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> PIC is king, I'm sure. But I'd like to hear from those who are using all > >> brands. Whichever you use, what do you like about it? What don't you like > >> about others? Suggestions re. learning? > > >> I've programmed 68000 assembly and some higher-level languages (FORTRAN; > >> some > >> BASIC; COBOL if forced to admit it), so no stranger to programming, per > >> se. > > >> Thanks, > >> -- > >> John English > > > 32 bit ARM's are nice, you can get them in small 4x5 mm packages up to > > huge floating point versions with 256K of RAM, the small ones are a > > few bucks. They work very well with high level languages and the > > assembly is easy, you spend more time doing stuff rather then > > fighting with the limitations of smaller PIC's, AVR's and 8051's (bank > > switching, multi word math, accessing 16 bit hardware with double > > reads that have to be done in a certain order, etc,etc,etc all that > > weird goofy stuff goes away). > > > About C, you have to realize that the majority of example code out > > there is in C, I hate the language myself, but I use it because it is > > so easy to pick up someone's elses C code and start working with that. > > I bought an ARM development kit recently and was up and running in a > > few hours (blinking LEDS, reading A/D's, and sending the data to the > > PC via the UART), cause they had C examples of everything, converting > > the A/D inputs, UART utilities, start up files etc. > > > You have to remember the actual number of C features actually needed > > in a small embedded processor is very little... learn a couple while/ > > for loops, if statement, how to set/clear a bit and how to call a > > routine and what else is there? not much > > OK -- I'm a late entry on this one -- but WinAVR makes everything similarly > transparent for the 8 bit Atmel chips, and there is plenty of code out there > written in C for the AVRs, including math libs and such (used one to do a > software PID for servo motors -- worked well !!) -- best of all for me -- > the compiler is free :) And like the ARM, you can ramp up to 32 bit chips > with on-chip DSP and may other specialty features > > I personally dont care WHICH chip I use as long as I have good development > tools :) I started on the 8047/8051/Z8 MANY moons ago, and I've done plenty > of PIC and AVR -- I prefer the AVR chips because the development tools and > community support I got were better than what I ran into for the PIC when I > was getting started. (and the only FREE dev tools I could find for the the > PIC were BASIC, which I put aside a coupla hundred years ago !!) > > They are all good chips -- make sure you got good dev tools !!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There really is no upgrade path for the AVR, the AVR 32 is only the same in name only, it's nothing like a 32 bit version of the AVR8, and currently there is only one device in that family. the AVR series hasen't increased in performance in years (speed, a/d resolution, DMA, fifo buffers, divide instructions etc). Microchip has been very good in this respect, even though I don't use any of their PICS. I ended up using the Atmel SAM7's and Analog devices ARM chips, although AVR's are still superior in battery power devices. All the development tools are excellent now, in my opinion, but I'm pretty easy to please....
From: krw on 17 Mar 2007 12:34
In article <12vlrdv6b9apl72(a)news.supernews.com>, spam-not(a)nowhere.com says... > John E. wrote: > >> I will mention that for most microprocessors the verb is "use", but > >> for PIC it's "suck it up and use" -- Microchip does a sterling job > >> with peripherals, pin drive and features, but gawd I hate their > >> architecture. > > > > There's a pattern developing in this thread... > > Yes there certainly is. You've discovered the pic haters, welcome to my > world. ;-) Once you learn to use several different archetectures, you'll > see that they all suck in one way or another. That's true of more than just UCs. ;-) > 8052's are dumb in how they deal with internal/external storage Each memory type has its reason. I've found 8051s (variants) quite powerful because of the memory types and the wide variety of peripherals that have been integrated into them. > and also their "output" vs "input" > methods suck too because they don't have true directional i/o pins. Again, they're not all "true" bidirectional pins because they're used for multiple purposes. They're not difficult to make into true I/O pins though. With any flexibility you have to trade off some complexity. > AVRs, > TI MSP430 and the rest all have their problems too whether it be an > inabillity to supply drive current to a part or some other deficiency. They > all have trade-offs. What you're seeing here is an unfair attack on PICs > that seems to be made mostly by people that have hardly (if ever) used one, > Tim excluded. As you said, PIC is king and it is for a reason, they work. > I've never used a PIC, though would like to do a job with one. Picking (NPI) up a new processor isn't a big deal once you've seen a few. ;-) -- Keith |