On Apr 2, 3:12 am, mattschinkel <[email protected]> wrote: > Kyle's documentation is strictly about the language, we have that > already. > > Matt.
Kyle's document is rather sparse and has some information lacking. It certainly needs simple *and* more complex examples. What I was thinking of would have 3 reference sections (core language, chipdefs/ Pragmas and compiler directives), with NO examples. The "main" part would take each part in complexity with simple examples Part 1 1) Declaring scaler constants & variables 2) Expressions 3) Built in functions 4) Tests 5) Declaring vector constants and variables (arrays) 7) Loops 8) Blocks, Procedures, Functions and Interrupts 9) Pseudo vars with non-trivial examples 10) Using information declared in chip include and other Pragmas 11) Using assembler and why mostly you should not. Part 2 Complete programs (with and without libraries) Part 3 Issues of performance etc of 16F vs 18F and why for 18pins + the default choice today for new projects is 18F Part 4 Various examples of multitasking without "start" or "suspend". Why an actual language extension for multitasking on PIC is a bad idea. Complete programs with multiple ISRs demonstrating Multitasking. Part 5 appendix 1 Kyle's language ref expanded appendix 2 Kyle's pragma ref expanded appendix 3 chip include and chip def documented appendix 4 Compiler options. appendix 6 Recommended PIC from 8 pin DIP to 40pin DIP and 18pin SO to 64pin TQFP. Compare 18F and 16F. Why other Microchip parts may not be "PIC" in the sense that 10/12/16 and 18 families are. appendix 7 Programmers, Tools develop boards, Sources etc. I think the jallib itself is likely to be be too changeable to have an reference section.Put Links to here. I think the style should not be that of jallib as it's not (IMO) the optimal in readability and is not the language. The majority of existing programmers will easily follow jallib style to use libraries. Few people will produce libraries. The majority of people will be used to a more flexible coding style. Anyway, above is book I am going to write. Based on writing such for C+ + and reading such books for Ada, Prolog, VB, Modula-2, Occam, C, C++, Pascal, Forth. A simple reference isn't very useful. I found with existing documentation recently having to write a lot of snippits and see if (a) Compile, (b) Work as expected and yet I'm a little experienced with programming. Unlike C, pascal, Ada or Basic I think the PIC has to come more into the text. There are a confusing selection of PIC, many for historical reasons, which should not be used in new designs. I think thus last appendix is important -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
