Which uController to learn?
in [Design]
|
Prev: 1000V high side gate drive
Next: Micpre of Graham
From: Spehro Pefhany on 15 Mar 2007 20:25 On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:21:33 +0000, the renowned Brendan Gillatt <brendan(a)brendanREMOVETHISgillatt.co.uk> wrote: >On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:52:06 -0700, John E. <incognito(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, > >You can't really say what one is 'best' - it depends on what you >really want to do. > >Even with PICs it's hard to say which is best - from tiny 8 pin >controllers to massive 44 pin processing beasts with hundreds in >between. Not to mention the 64, 68, 80 and 100-pin ones. > >PIC assembly is tiresome at the least. The instruction set is tiny >which means that they take considerably more coding than, say, x86 >assembly. There are several flavo[r]s to PIC assembly. >Atmel micros are becoming popular too - though I haven't had any >experience with them. > >Depending on what you want, you may look at *gasp* Basic Stamps, made >by Parralax (sp?) if you know BASIC well - just don't count on amazing >performance. That thing is not 'a microcontroller'. As to the original question.. it really depends on the application and the peripherals you might need. If you need Ethernet and/or USB on board, that's one thing (you'll almost certainly want something with a decent C compiler and available protocol stack), if you just want to diddle some bits fast, or do a relatively slow PID control that's another. If you need 10, 12, or 24 bits of ADC, multiple PWMs, quadrature input, direct display drive, etc. etc. that may play a great role. The choice of core is only one consideration among many. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff(a)interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
From: Spehro Pefhany on 15 Mar 2007 20:27 On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:41:18 +0100, the renowned martin griffith <mart_in_medina(a)ya___.es> wrote: >On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:11:02 -0700, in sci.electronics.design John E. ><incognito(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Thanks for your comments, Martin. >> >>> And be sure to practice your soldering skills/ interfacing techniques, >>> this is very important compared with the Windoze World >> >>That's really why I'm interested in getting into the u-controller world. To >>interface hardware to the "real world". >> >>Soldering iron warmed up and at the ready... > ><sticking neck out> >checkout: >SPI interface, (realtime clocks, external eeproms etc.) >I2C, the uberversal philips interface, same as SPI, but different, and >pain in the neck IMHO >logic fets >H bridge >opto isolators >Reset and brownout detectors/ TL77xx etc from TI > >and the universal "why doesn't my 2*8 LCD work" >Cos it takes many milliseconds to initialise, check the Fuckin* busy >flag Or just put some proper (debugged) delays in there and it'll work fine. And the second line of your 2 x 16 doesn't work because the memory map has a big frick'n hole in it... ></sticking neck out> > >and get a decent bench/lab power supply with adjustable current >limiting, and a scope > > >martin Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff(a)interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
From: TT_Man on 15 Mar 2007 19:25 "John E." <incognito(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message 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 > For a no frills easy to understand and get going, I'd say 8051 series. The Dallas 89c450 and Atmel 89c51ED2 both have hardware boot loaders so you can get code into them very quickly and see whats going on with your code. I hate C
From: John E. on 15 Mar 2007 19:42 > Which is the "best" is dependant upon your application. Well, to be fair, I didn't ask for "best". That's always a dead-end (or open-end) discussion. I'm really interested in my options for assembly programming for interfacing with sensors, switches, etc., and controlling relays, LEDs, maybe the odd 7-segment or serial display. I don't think I'll need networking, or such, nor that I'll get back into learning a high-level language (never tackled 'C' - I think that would be a show-stopper, re. getting started with u-controllers). So, I guess I'm asking for the the product line with the most supporting (good) documentation and examples and which has the potential for easing me toward my goal (ie, my previous para.) with the least hair-pulling. Thanks, -- John English
From: Anthony Fremont on 15 Mar 2007 19:42
David L. Jones wrote: > 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. I've never used it, but I've heard good things about it. I always use assembler on the PIC. I've used the Keil compiler on the 8052, sweet. It really generates dense code. Never done anything with an 18F yet, but I plan to whenever I need that much horsepower. I have to admit that there have been times that I've longed to be writing something for the PIC in other than assembler. >> 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... I'll have to order some 18Fs and give it a try. I got my Rigol scope today. Oh man this is just way too cool. :-))) |