[time-nuts] Good (cheap) PIC chip choice for project?
lists at rtty.us
Sat May 25 19:32:48 EDT 2013
At least on the code I've tried both ways, there's about a 2:1 difference in what you can get done on a low end PIC with assembly vs C. There are a lot of things you can get away with in assembler that drive a C compiler a bit nuts….
On May 25, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Rex <rexa at sonic.net> wrote:
> On 5/25/2013 1:22 PM, Bob Camp wrote:
>> If you are going to code on a cheap PIC (the PIC16 series) you will likely need to learn PIC assembler. All my coding on those parts was in assembly language. They are old enough / slow enough / small RAM enough that things like C (or the other high level languages you listed) really don't do well on them.
> Several years back I did a bunch of stuff with various PIC16 series chips. All of it, except for some minor assembler tweaks, was done in C. Glad I did not know it wasn't practical. I would have wasted a lot of time coding it in assembler. Of course my goal was just getting something done, not being elegant or very efficient. Time-nutty stuff like TVB's frequency divider may require the detail and efficiency only provided by assembler.
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
More information about the time-nuts