PIC and BITS
Posted 18th June 2008 at 11:26 PM by Mikebits
While the advent of devices like the AVR and PIC microcontrollers have enabled the hobbyist to implement their vision into a real world working piece of hardware, it has also become a substitute for a solid knowledge of digital circuits and design by some.
The digital circuit hobby designer has become a black box, embedded code designer, and may lack the rudimentary knowledge of digital hardware design. Don’t get me wrong; there are many PIC and AVR users that do have a good digital design foundation, but use the embedded approach out of convenience. Often however; a budding hobbyist learns the ways of the black box art without much knowledge of digital design. The latter situation becomes apparent when a person inquires about building a divide by N circuit, and the response is often, “Use a PIC”. To me this seems silly when a simple logic device would suffice.
If a hardware engineer were to suggest such a solution for a production unit, he/she would be thrown out on their ear.
So I guess I should have a point here. Not only is implementing an embedded solution often overkill, it also becomes a crutch. I think all electronic hobbyists should develop a strong digital background before jumping on the embedded PIC wagon.
The digital circuit hobby designer has become a black box, embedded code designer, and may lack the rudimentary knowledge of digital hardware design. Don’t get me wrong; there are many PIC and AVR users that do have a good digital design foundation, but use the embedded approach out of convenience. Often however; a budding hobbyist learns the ways of the black box art without much knowledge of digital design. The latter situation becomes apparent when a person inquires about building a divide by N circuit, and the response is often, “Use a PIC”. To me this seems silly when a simple logic device would suffice.
If a hardware engineer were to suggest such a solution for a production unit, he/she would be thrown out on their ear.
So I guess I should have a point here. Not only is implementing an embedded solution often overkill, it also becomes a crutch. I think all electronic hobbyists should develop a strong digital background before jumping on the embedded PIC wagon.
Total Comments 7
Comments
-
I think taking the easy way is better sometime, don't you agree. Most non-electrical people face difficuilty assembly or understanding circuit. I think for hobbyist and people who are interested in electrical can start easy and the explore as they move on.Posted 21st June 2008 at 02:09 AM by uaefame
-
I agree Mikebits.The new generation doesn't know anything about digital circuitry.They starts from micro controllers & dropping always down the digital side due to lack knowledge of their digital knowledge.But they will meet the problems when they do higher designs on their embedded systems.
Also on the other hand there is some jealous on new kids from the old persons because now the time is past for them to learn the micro stuff.But they can do lots of wonders with their knowledge.
The hell of a technology growing very fast.Its also impossible to adapt to the latest technology suddenly.
I never throw my digital stuff thats the strength to embedded stuff. For newbies at least learn even one digital part while doing the embedded stuff.Posted 26th June 2008 at 08:49 AM by Gayan Soyza -
As a 2005 Purdue CompE graduate, I can say that a lot of people go into microcontrollers because they are way easier to debug, so many things can go wrong when prototyping on a bread board.Posted 27th June 2008 at 11:59 AM by transistance -
I kinda fall into the category you describe, i would readily use a pic in place of almost any digital circuit, although in most cases the pic way is cheaper and easier to debug. I do have quite a good grounding in digital electronics but im crap at analog electronics.
Even at a relativly high level of production, i would image that a pic solution would be cheaper than the multitude of digital logic gates required to offer the same level of functionality of even the most basic pic.Posted 19th October 2008 at 12:08 AM by SMUGangsta - hi every body can you help any one to send the header files for keyboard interface using PIC 18F4620.. PRESENT I AM USING KBD.C of CCS but it was not working with my code. this my code***********
******************************
#include "C:\Program Files\PICC\Projects\KEYPAD\keyprt.h"
#include <KBD.C>
unsigned char k;
void main()
{
port_b_pullups(TRUE);
setup_adc_ports(NO_ANALOGS|VSS_VDD);
setup_adc(ADC_OFF|ADC_TAD_MUL_0);
setup_psp(PSP_DISABLED);
setup_spi(SPI_SS_DISABLED);
setup_wdt(WDT_OFF);
setup_timer_0(RTCC_INTERNAL);
setup_timer_1(T1_DISABLED);
setup_timer_2(T2_DISABLED,0,1);
setup_comparator(NC_NC_NC_NC);
setup_vref(FALSE);
kbd_init();
//Setup_Oscillator parameter not selected from Intr Oscillator Config tab
// TODO: USER CODE!!
output_c(0xff);
while (1)
{
k=kbd_getc();
k=k+48;
output_a(k);
delay_ms(100);
//lcd_putc("\f");
}
}
****************************
thank you very muchPosted 4th March 2009 at 01:27 PM by hareesh.makesu - I am agree , not all what is so call easy good solution. I use transistors and make my basic digital circuits , any logic AND, OR, NOT, NAND, NOR, I was made part by part. I am not graduate in electronics, not at all but know how something work is good, and cannot be too much knowledge. (actually I never hear that "someone have too much knowledge", it not possible)
I easy follow TTL and all other low integrate circuits. And I never think "this I do not need anymore".
I do not need PIC , all my construction are hardware not software and if I make error for me easy found what going wrong.Posted 9th April 2009 at 11:15 AM by 1oskar - well said Mike! after all this movlw etc can be done later also.
but a foundation in digital fundamentals makes a person fit for his life time.Posted 2nd May 2009 at 09:16 AM by mvs sarma 
