Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Question about picMicro programming

T

tim

I have the pickit 1 programmer. I want to go through the
tutorial examples, starting with Debounce. Tha samples
come in an asm and C versions. My question, what do I need
to compile the C files?

thanks
tim.
 
B

Bob Monsen

tim said:
I have the pickit 1 programmer. I want to go through the
tutorial examples, starting with Debounce. Tha samples
come in an asm and C versions. My question, what do I need
to compile the C files?

thanks
tim.

The Pic Kit 1 used to come with a time limited copy of the Hitech c
compiler. You could run it for a month. It should be on the CD you got
with the thing. You need to set up the projects properly; as I recall,
the tutorial sucks pretty badly in that regard. It takes a while to
figure out how to set it up.
 
P

Paul Jones

Do you want to learn C or MCU's

C is the worst HLL to program MCU's
It is a special version that creates tiny code , nothing like th
big versions

There is nothing easier than FORTH and it has ALWAYS generate
tiny code .

There are many ppl trying to say FORTH is slow or bad or ...

FORTH is the fastest to write code , the fastest run time code
 
B

Bob Monsen

Paul said:
Do you want to learn C or MCU's ?

C is the worst HLL to program MCU's .
It is a special version that creates tiny code , nothing like the
big versions

There is nothing easier than FORTH and it has ALWAYS generated
tiny code .

There are many ppl trying to say FORTH is slow or bad or ....

FORTH is the fastest to write code , the fastest run time code .

Well, I've written several FORTH implementations, and done large systems
in FORTH. It's a butt-ugly language. Unless you are quite careful, it's
nearly impossible to decipher a few minutes after you've written it. As
a consequence, it's often called a write-only language.

Some of the nice things about FORTH are that multithreading is trivial,
since it often has a built-in scheduler; the interpretive nature makes
it great for hardware hacks, probing registers, and the like; it can be
made very fast and small because of the way the 'interpreter' (ie, NEXT)
works.

I've never seen a good debugger for FORTH, though. They may exist, but
the ones I've seen are always clumsy and annoying to use.

There is at least one FORTH for the PIC; there may be more. There is
also a free C compiler (the hitech C compiler) that you can download.
Using either that or just MPASM will be far easier and more intuitive
than using FORTH, unless you have a masochistic/obsessive streak.
 
M

Matt Flyer

Bob said:
Well, I've written several FORTH implementations, and done large systems
in FORTH. It's a butt-ugly language. Unless you are quite careful, it's
nearly impossible to decipher a few minutes after you've written it. As
a consequence, it's often called a write-only language.

Some of the nice things about FORTH are that multithreading is trivial,
since it often has a built-in scheduler; the interpretive nature makes
it great for hardware hacks, probing registers, and the like; it can be
made very fast and small because of the way the 'interpreter' (ie, NEXT)
works.

I've never seen a good debugger for FORTH, though. They may exist, but
the ones I've seen are always clumsy and annoying to use.

There is at least one FORTH for the PIC; there may be more. There is
also a free C compiler (the hitech C compiler) that you can download.
Using either that or just MPASM will be far easier and more intuitive
than using FORTH, unless you have a masochistic/obsessive streak.
It would seem to me that if one is trying to write code for a PIC that
it would be a fairly simple application that wouldn't be using an
operating systems or multithreaded applications.

A lot of people like to program the PIC in assembly which would
certainly get you into the nuts and bolts of the processor. If you wish
to use a higher level language, C would probably be the best bet, IMHO.
 
Top