colin mac

The subject of computer science doesn't have much to do with computer hardware, according to Wiki, people were thinking about changing its name to something else. Computer engineering on the other hand is all to do with the hardware.

3v0

You might ask why C is still with us after 35 years when other languages from that time period have either faded into obscurity or morphed to the point where they are unrecognizable.

In part it is because C is a mid level language.

To criticize C for being hard to read is misplaced. C is very much like any other procedural language.

The one exception is the use of pointers. C pointers are not an overly complex topic but can be challenging to the ADD crowd. Pointers are there because they are a fast, efficient, way of handling data. No apologies required.

Unreadability complaints should be directed at the guy who wrote the code. Regardless of the language readability is ultimately up to the programmer.


http://www2.lv.psu.edu/ojj/courses/i...1971-1990.html

__________________
search engine for electronic parts
Junebug USB PIC programmer kit., USB Bit Wacker, Homepage
The 15 Minute Printed Circuit Board! (+drill time)

Pommie

Pointers are fantastic. Pointers on Pics are horrid. Four different types of pointers that aren't interchangable. That takes some time to get your head around.

I know this isn't pic specific but I just had to mention that quirk.

Mike.
P.S. What is the "ADD" crowd?

3v0

Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)

Mostly a bunch of hooey IMHO.

__________________
search engine for electronic parts
Junebug USB PIC programmer kit., USB Bit Wacker, Homepage
The 15 Minute Printed Circuit Board! (+drill time)

futz

__________________
=========================
Futz's Microcontrollers & Robotics
=========================

Torben

Yow. That guy needs to apply his coding philosophy (which I only partly agree with) to his prose. Tipping point indeed.


Torben

donniedj

No need to take note to the billions of C related back and forth arguments on the web. All one has to do is take note of a single thread, like this one, to see how a language ought not to be the main discussion as opposed to what the language is attemping to accomplish. And I quote my first reply:

Thank goodness the F84 evolved else there would be billions of F84 is the only way and needs no review and change discussions littering the web. Thank goodness the rise and fall times of ICs evolved else the stack of propogation delay tolerances between devices would hinder all end products to max 10MHz speed. Thank goodness the power dissipation of components evolved else we all would be carrying big bulky end products where the bulk size and mass would be attributed the the needed heat sinks and fans. Than goodness the constant evolution of science results in more powerful machines to probe and expose the inner workings of biology and chemistry that makes medicines to keep the populous from dropping dead over a common cold. Thank goodness automobiles have advanced... oh wait no such a thing since the Model T barely grow pass 25 MPG since 1900s. Thank goodness the standard computer language has advanced... oh wait no such a thing since the '70s.

aussiepoof

You know you're in trouble when you selectively quote your own post ;-)

Your first (elided) line reads:
Which is certainly makes the language the main focus of the discussion and not "what the language is attempting to accomplish" n'est ce pas?

The limited power of microcontrollers leaves them stuck back in the realm of 1970's languages as surely as any CPU running at less than the several gigahertz necessary to run post-1970's languages.

I am more productive in C than I would be in assembler and accept the *potential* performance hit. C is for me far less difficult to read than the PIC assembler's obscure mnemonics (the z80 mnemonics were easier and it *was* from the 70's!!!)

That said I grudgingly accept that many of the F84 die hards on here would prefer to program in assembler and may actually believe themselves to be more productive in it :-P <sarcasm off>

P.

Nigel Goodwin

The mnemonics are only obscure to you, because you're used to Z80 - it really depends on what you're used to - also the RISC instruction set probably confuses you when you are used to the overly complicated Z80 instruction set. I came from a 6502 background, and had no trouble moving to PIC - but find Z80 as obscure as you find PIC!

I would suggest (and often do) if you come from a Z80 background, the AVR is probably a better choice than a PIC - but if you're using C, then it doesn't really matter.

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

3v0

Well put.

The fact that we still use this 1970's language speaks to its robustness.

__________________
search engine for electronic parts
Junebug USB PIC programmer kit., USB Bit Wacker, Homepage
The 15 Minute Printed Circuit Board! (+drill time)

aussiepoof

Hah! If only it were that easy... you see I've programmed in many assembly languages all with differing mnemonics since 1977. This includes the MIPS CPU just introduced to the PIC range as their 32-bit line which happens to be RISC :-)

So no, RISC is no issue and nor is the Harvard architecture - the beauty of having studied computer science and electronic engineering more than 20 years ago I guess ;-) Or it could be that working for a company doing work in Unix kernels for Fujitsu supercomputers, SGI, Sun etc. helped... but I digress.

I actually much preferred the PDP-11 and Motorola 68000 mnemonics and their great degree of orthoginality.

Indeed it doesn't matter... and I have found the PIC 18F series to be very easy to use parts. I wouldn't give up the debugging abilities of the USB connections of the 18F2550/4550 series for anything!! It has radically increased my productivity in conjunction with C and the MPLAB/C18 combo.

YMMV,
P.