3v0

Nigel:

This is very real for me in that I am teaching young people to use uC's.

I understand why you feel the way you do about assembly. Anyone programming uC's needs a solid understanding of the hardware. But not when he/she/it is very green.

Learn a higher level language first, you then have the understanding of programming required to learn assembler.

From a structure and style viewpoint assembler is a bad first language.

As I tried to point out in my previous post it is far easier to teach people to program first. Then teach them about uC's. Learning machine language is easier if the student already understands basic flow control etc.

Current thinking in computer education is to start intro students at an abstract level. One school I know of starts with ALICE. At another first term students do not do any programming They spend there time learning logic and problem solving. Not sure but I think their first language is JAVA.

I think this is an effort to both bring people up to where they are ready to learn programming, and maybe weed out a few that would fail if they tried.

One can illustrate PWM in 10 or 12 lines of C code. The transistion to hardware PWM is all about setting up the hardware to do it. Can the student read a data sheet. As you said setting up the hardware is much the same. But the basic concept is better taught in a higher level language.
Why learn a little assembler on a 16F then move to C and the 18F? Just use the 18F start to finish.

The truth is that I do not much care what people learn first. The point is that they learn. It is great that you help people with their assembly problems. Hats off.

Perspective has a lot to do with our differing viewpoints.

Nigel Goodwin

I think the difference here is that YOU are teaching them, so they have you to ask about the hardware, and presumably you teach them about it from a high level perspective?. This isn't an option without you there, the datasheets and application notes are all in assembler, and unless you understand a modicum of assembler a beginner is going to struggle.

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk

blueroomelectronics

IMO there is no easy answer to this debate.
If I started with the excellent 18F series I'd have a tough time going back to the 16F or worse 12bit 12F chips like the 12F509
I did start with the dirt simple 16C54, C was not a good option for that chip and CCS C was a bugfest back then. So I learned PIC assembler and it's not that difficult at all even with the 16F bank switching and small but powerful instruction set.
Since C supports inline code it's handy to know the basics, on the other hand the job market will expect C.
That said the 18F was designed with C in mind and the free SE C18 compiler is a real bargain, the extended instuction set and wider memory (16bit) makes assembler a breeze, (no hunting around for what bank that SFR is in).
Being able to read the code produced by the compiler will certainly come in handy for some.

__________________
Bill
Smart Kits build Smart People
http://www.blueroomelectronics.com

Wingmax

We do need a strong background in software model of the micro. Also, there are only about 35 to 40 asm instructions to learn, and if timing is critical, asm is a must. But high level language such as C is always used in a real job. It is much easier and efficient.
The point I'm trying to make is, we should start with fundatmantal programming skill and logic. Like 3V0 said, if any one find that programming is not for him, then better move to different direction before wasting more time.
Learn asm then high level language. Because ultimately the students will have to find a job and high level language (C) is more important.

__________________
May the force be with you.


My project: Simple White Line Follower

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z_MmrdH4oc

http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/j...nefollower.jpg