On Aug 16, 2008, at 5:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Keeping it secular, what's with the PIC bashing? > > Surely it's a case of horses for courses, and there's been enough > successful > commercial, as well as hobby, products based on PICs to suggest > you might be > just a wee bit out of touch with some parts of the real world:-) > > regards > > Nigel > GM8PZR > >
And: > Oh good, they we can take your opinion on PIC's as that of an expert. > > -Chuck Harris > Gentlemen, I could not have made that more tongue-in-cheek! It's a good thing this isn't about Python, the Amiga, or the obvious superiority of "vi", or I would have seen some real flames! My opinion on PIC's is no more valid than my opinion on brands of car. I can make some observations drawn from 20+ years of computing/ electronics hobby, and 15 years as a software professional. But I am not a professional embedded systems engineer. I can have entirely valid, well thought out reasons, but at the end of the day it's not much different than "I like VW, and I don't like Dodge". I can go fetch groceries with either one. To a professional, perhaps nothing of interest. To someone contemplating buying one of the "PIC'n" books or building any kind of programmer that involves two 9 volt batteries, perhaps they will find my comments a useful warning. As a member of the "brain damaged by Basic" generation, I mostly agree with Bill's comments regarding it's use. Yet I still keep the public domain 8052AH-BASIC image in my '51 code directory, and have fond memories of it's use. The PIC is not alone in propagating that mistake, though they seem to be the last. Cheers, Rob _______________________________________________ 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.
