On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:41:32 -0800 Jeff Newmiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "finite state machine" Indeed, I love state machines. I've built entire projects around them. Had to do some bit-twiddling radio communications (including generating -- and detecting, of course -- Manchester coding) on a PIC micro once. Boy, that was fun, let me tell you! Naturally I used a state machine, as I was generating (and receiving) the bits on-the-fly. And, well, a bunch of stuff. It was complex, and the most complex part was in the battery-powered handheld remote, which had the least resources available. (For speed I stored the next state directly as a pointer rather than as an index for a case statement.) And naturally, after I left they designed in a more sophisticated and faster radio system, which means they took all that carefully designed and tuned code and tossed it right out the window. *sigh* State machines are particularly useful where you've got an interrupt-driven system that needs to remember what it was doing last, and what it needs to do next, based on current conditions and/or input, because you're not sitting in a polling loop waiting for the next event. Or anything where the events happen asynchronously. Like, debouncing and tracking the mute button. Oh right, they changed that too. O_o _______________________________________________ vox-tech mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
