Which uController to learn?
in [Design]
|
Prev: 1000V high side gate drive
Next: Micpre of Graham
From: John E. on 15 Mar 2007 18:53 > and get a decent bench/lab power supply with adjustable current > limiting, and a scope Still looking into the former (many decent PS models coming out of Asia, recently); got a couple of scopes. Thanks, -- John English
From: Anthony Fremont on 15 Mar 2007 18:51 Eeyore wrote: > "John E." 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? > > 8051 family. You can't keep a good chip down. It's been going since > 1981 IIRC. NXP's (formerly Philips) variants do all sorts of useful > stuff with the 8051 core plus their RAM is static now so you can > reduce the clock to zero to save power. And the 8051 is multi-sourced > ! > > >> What don't you like about others? > > PICs are indifferently documented so I've heard. I also heard > something about dodgy compilers. Oh gawd. The biggest problem I've seen with PIC documentation is that people won't read it. Almost every quirk and pitfall now gets fancy shaded background balloons complete with code examples. The only "dodgy" compiler I ever dealt with was SDCC for the 8052, what a POS. It may be better now, but a few years ago it sucked bad. Of course I don't even bother trying to use C on a PIC, it's just not desiged for it. The 18Fs are different though, they do C ok. FWICT, everyone seems happy with Microchip's ever-lasting "trial" C compiler for the 18Fs. Multisourced, that's another misrepresentation. For the most part, chips from different vendors are just similar archetectures, not "compatible" chips insofar as actually being able to drop one in place of another. Not to mention how vastly incompatible the code internals are for anything but the most basic peripherals. But that's just my opinion. ;-)
From: petrus bitbyter on 15 Mar 2007 18:58 "John E." <incognito(a)yahoo.com> schreef in bericht news:0001HW.C21F0006000A0C96F04886C8(a)news.sf.sbcglobal.net... > 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 > I often point to http://www.voti.nl/swp/n_index.html for an intro in PIC micro's. If you have experience in 68000 then AVR may suit you better. petrus bitbyter
From: David L. Jones on 15 Mar 2007 18:59 John E. 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. PIC and Atmel AVR battle it out for the top spot in the entry level market, you will get tons of beginner support (hardware, software, and sample code) for either platform, arguably more than any other platfrom. Which is the "best" is dependant upon your application. For example, if you do *really* low power stuff then the MSP430 series is very popular. If you want seamless migration from Flash to OTP to Mask ROM then PIC might be the way to go. If you want fast processing with a reasonable number of options then AVR might be the best bet. The list is endless... For starting out, stick with AVR or PIC, and use a high level language like C. Both platforms have free C compiler suites, but IMHO the AVR GNU compiler is a PITA to get up and running, and the worst problem you can have when starting out is having to fight your tools. Also, I think the AVR STK500 programmer is (or was) a complete dog, horrible for a beginner. PICs have their quirks too, but I had a *lot* more trouble when starting out with the AVR's. But no doubt the AVR crowd will shoot me down in flames... The PIC 18 series C compiler is essentially free from Microchip, and that combined with an MPLAB compatible programmer would be a very good and powerful starting platform if you don't want to play with the kiddie kits. However there are tons of good PIC starter kits and demo boards around, just look at the Farnell catalog or any of the multitude of PIC supplier website for starters. Dave.
From: David L. Jones on 15 Mar 2007 19:06
On Mar 16, 8:51 am, "Anthony Fremont" <spam-...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > "John E." 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? > > > 8051 family. You can't keep a good chip down. It's been going since > > 1981 IIRC. NXP's (formerly Philips) variants do all sorts of useful > > stuff with the 8051 core plus their RAM is static now so you can > > reduce the clock to zero to save power. And the 8051 is multi-sourced > > ! > > >> What don't you like about others? > > > PICs are indifferently documented so I've heard. I also heard > > something about dodgy compilers. > > Oh gawd. The biggest problem I've seen with PIC documentation is that > people won't read it. Almost every quirk and pitfall now gets fancy shaded > background balloons complete with code examples. > > The only "dodgy" compiler I ever dealt with was SDCC for the 8052, what a > POS. It may be better now, but a few years ago it sucked bad. Of course I > don't even bother trying to use C on a PIC, it's just not desiged for it. If you use a good C compiler like HI-TECH PIC-C then it works just fine on any 16series (or even smaller) PIC. You can do heaps with C on only 1K memory devices with a good compiler. > The 18Fs are different though, they do C ok. FWICT, everyone seems happy > with Microchip's ever-lasting "trial" C compiler for the 18Fs. Yeah, very few limitations by the looks of it. I don't know why they don't just make it free and be done with it. It would put a lot of the other tool companies noses out of joint though I guess... Dave. |