Robert Vassar wrote: > I regard PIC chips as something to be avoided. Horrible little > architecture that should have died back in the 70's. It gained a > foothold with hobbyists due to the ease with which they can be > programmed.
Wow! I guess I should stop using them. I have placed thousands of PIC's in devices that I have built for the military, and never had even one fail. I program them entirely in "C", and mostly use the units that have a 10 bit ADC, and a PCM cell on board. The modern '51's are just as easy, and in some cases > easier. And I assume they have them in 6 or 8 pin surface mount with 4 or 5 ADC channels, and a built in clock oscillator that has a better than 1% accuracy over the full military/industrial temperature range? Oh, and I forgot, a uart on every pin? PIC's are the greatest little problem solvers in existence. Some of them ship with bootloader that can be activated on > reset, and programmed using the onboard serial port. Last I checked, > even the AVR's are missing out on that, though they're relatively > easy to program as well, and have an arch better suited to C. Who cares? PIC's program very nicely in "C" too. You have to remember they are a very small machine, so stupid things like recursion are out, but I have rarely found that I couldn't do what I wanted to do with them. And CCS's $100 "C" compiler produces code that is as good or better than I can do in assembler, and I am no slouch in assembler. -Chuck Harris, Not a hobbyist! _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
