Which uController to learn?
in [Design]
|
Prev: 1000V high side gate drive
Next: Micpre of Graham
From: krw on 18 Mar 2007 14:25 In article <12vo929610ckrbc(a)news.supernews.com>, spam-not(a)nowhere.com says... > krw wrote: > > 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. ;-) > > Yes, all computers suck in one way or another. The same applies to all > operating systems. Some more than others. ;-) True, some OSs suck more than others. OTOH, some suck so much they simply blow. > >> 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. > > PICs pretty much have all the same peripherals that I've seen in them. I haven't looked closely in the past couple of years. 8051s had it all over others several years back. I had plenty of 8051s (and the environment) for my last project so I just used them. only needed ten. ;-) > I just don't like the whole MOV MOVX thing. The 8051 is extreme Harvard. It makes sense once you break the von Neuman mindset. A von Neuman controller is a waste. > People whine about bank switching > on PICs, but the 8052 has some of the same thing. How so? ...at least until 64K no bank switching is needed. After 64K, well the 8051 was never intended to be a PeeCee. ;-) > It's not that I hate > them, I just don't love them. I don't really love PICs either, but I can > live with them for now. AFAIC, the 8051 is a good choice as a bit-banger, which was what it was designed to do. As I've said, I've never used a PIC (or seriously looked at it, even) so I can't compare the two. My assumption is that the PIC architects aren't brain-dead (like Dimbulb). > Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not a one tool fits all kind person. > All micros have their place, some have more than others. ;-) I'm not so sure they ALL do. ;-) > >> 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. > > That's my point. On allot of micros, you just set some kind of direction > flag and voila, no ambiguity. There really isn't any ambiguity with an 8051 either. Gazinta bit and a gazouta bit and a couple of rules. Some tieups may be needed for shared pins. Share pins and you'll have that. > > >> 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. ;-) > > You should try them sometime, they're not as bad as people let on. They > shine in abusive environments and will deliver the current to external > devices (usually 20 to 25mA sink or source on most common parts). Hard to > kill for the most part and I'm certainly not afraid of them, just never had an opportunity. Maybe I'll buy a kit and play. > I've played with a few different micros, but there are still plenty left > that I haven't. I do want to play with some of those tiny 32 bit ARMs that > have lots of memory and speed. ARMs don't thrill me much. Too much power. I'd likely have to learn C. ;-) -- Keith
From: linnix on 18 Mar 2007 14:57 > > I've played with a few different micros, but there are still plenty left > > that I haven't. I do want to play with some of those tiny 32 bit ARMs that > > have lots of memory and speed. > > ARMs don't thrill me much. Too much power. Too much for what? The one I am using draws 70mA typical. Of course, you can run an AVR for less than 1mA. In my case, I use an AVR to power control an ARM. The ARM can do the job quicker so both can go back to sleep ASAP. > I'd likely have to learn C. ;-) Why? They work in assemblers too, even if I don't.
From: Terran Melconian on 18 Mar 2007 19:33 On 2007-03-18, John Barrett <ke5crp1(a)verizon.net> wrote: > optimized... you've gotta be right on the ragged edge of what the chip is > capable of before ASM is going to help you, and 99% of apps wont even come > close to that limit. Some people would say that if you're *not* at the edge of what the microcontroller can do, you're using one that's too expensive. ;)
From: linnix on 18 Mar 2007 19:55 On Mar 18, 3:33 pm, Terran Melconian <te_rem_ra_ove_an_fors...(a)consistent.org> wrote: > On 2007-03-18, John Barrett <ke5c...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > optimized... you've gotta be right on the ragged edge of what the chip is > > capable of before ASM is going to help you, and 99% of apps wont even come > > close to that limit. > > Some people would say that if you're *not* at the edge of what the > microcontroller can do, you're using one that's too expensive. ;) Same for PCs. How many people really need the 3GHz Dual core PC to read this newsgroup?
From: Tim Wescott on 19 Mar 2007 01:02
John E. wrote: >>Actually, just about anything that has a stack-oriented architecture, or >>a register-oriented architecture with an orthogonal instruction set and >>decent indexing. > > > Being a beginner in all this, I have no experience / reference to be able to > put product names to these capabilities. Would you "name names" please? I'll > create a diversion to take all the flames while you do that... (c: 68HC11, but it's old. I'll bet the 'HC12 and 'HC16 (do they still make those?) are good. AVR, if you don't mind wimpy pins. The TI MSP430 -- the small ones at least have oodles of pin drive, they appear to have a rational architecture, they're fast, and you can get a complete development system from TI for $20. ARM, if you don't mind wading through all the different versions that are available to find what you want (check those pin drive capacities!). The instruction set is rational, but only in a screwy, RISC sort of way. The capabilities are HUGE, and so is the set of mistakes you can make -- I wouldn't recommend it for a beginner. PowerPC -- Freescale has embedded versions. Same snarky comment about the instruction set as ARM, but still way better than a PIC. Those are the ones that I'm familiar with. Oh -- _not_ the Intersil/RCA 1802, unless you want to be an ace assembly language programmer. It was the very first processor I ever worked with, in 8th grade. I call it a NHISC -- Never Had an Instruction Set. I don't know if it's still around, but for quite a while it was the king of little space apps, because it had a huge geometry that could absorb cosmic rays without even noticing that they were there. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com Posting from Google? See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/ "Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" came out in April. See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html |