Continue to Site

Welcome to our site!

Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

  • Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

Trouble downloud source files from Mondo

Status
Not open for further replies.

OY2L

Member
When i try to downloud source files from mondo-technology i just get a file named SRC-file and no ASM file, and if i try to open it, it look's like my pc is trying open a new internet connection. What may be the problem?
 
I tried downloading and looking at a couple of of the source files (bench.src and candle2.src). They are just regular text files but the last line of each file containes a bunch of ASCII control characters which are probably confusing your text editor. On Ubuntu, the default gedit editor won't even open the files as it states that the character encoding cannot be determined. Using a proper editor--which doesn't try to be too smart like that--such as emacs or vi, the files are easy to open. Then the last line of garbage can be removed, the file saved, and then you can open it in any editor you like.

I don't know what the extra crap at the ends of the files is supposed to be but if I were you I'd contact the Mondo admins/webmaster and let them know that there's something wrong with the files. Perhaps it's inserted automatically by whatever editor they use, in which case it should not be included in the download files.


Hope this helps,

Torben
 
Your problem well explained in Mondos home page.Its in parallax format.

Code:
All source files are in the Tech-Tools (Parallax) format.  
The object code files are identical to Microchip's. You can use 
them 'as is' in most any programmer. Also, the (DOS-based) 
editor / assembler that produced them is available free HERE.

Few projects gives ASM.You must use that object file.But to see the source..........??:rolleyes:
 
Your problem well explained in Mondos home page.Its in parallax format.

Code:
All source files are in the Tech-Tools (Parallax) format.  
The object code files are identical to Microchip's. You can use 
them 'as is' in most any programmer. Also, the (DOS-based) 
editor / assembler that produced them is available free HERE.

. . .which, as I said, means that they are straight ASCII except that they include some proprietary control code crap at the end of the file, which confuses many editors.

They should really exclude that last line of stuff unless they are trying to force their readers to use a stone-age editor or edit the files before they are usable. Assemblers will choke on that line.

Few projects gives ASM.You must use that object file.But to see the source..........??:rolleyes:

They do provide ASM for all their files. That's the whole point. The ASM files, as presented on the website, are broken by the inclusion of that last line.

It's not a killer problem, but it is bad form.


Torben
 
They should really exclude that last line of stuff unless they are trying to force their readers to use a stone-age editor or edit the files before they are usable. Assemblers will choke on that line....
....
It's not a killer problem, but it is bad form.

I do not agree to your comments. The author has so kindly offered his codes, and even a suitable assembler for free with his source codes. He also provided a clear explanation of the difference between Microchip's and his version.

Remember this is free stuff, the author has every right to provide his coding in any format convenience to himself.

If you are a linux program writer, can someone blame you for not providing window's EXE in your package?
 
I do not agree to your comments. The author has so kindly offered his codes, and even a suitable assembler for free with his source codes. He also provided a clear explanation of the difference between Microchip's and his version.

I disagree. A clear explanation would include something along the lines of "Note that many editors will not load the source files as-is. If you want to use this in some other editor, then you will first need to delete the line of control codes at the end of each source file".

Remember this is free stuff, the author has every right to provide his coding in any format convenience to himself.

I neither said nor implied that he had no right to supply it in any format he wants. He could provide the code with comments in Sanskrit for all I care. It's still providing example code with a hidden stumbling block (albeit a small one). If one wants people to consider a source to be useful, there is no reason to include that line. That's his right, just as it's my right to consider it bad form and to use other, better-formatted example sources if available.

For the record, I also don't like the fact that (some) editors have the annoying habit of refusing to load a file flat-out because it contains a line of control codes.

If you are a linux program writer, can someone blame you for not providing window's EXE in your package?

False analogy: expecting a Linux code base to produce Windows binaries (which would need to be linked against Windows DLLs and use Windows system calls) would simply be nonsensical. Expecting that files purporting to be ASM text files be presented as simple text files should not, however, be too much to ask.

There are simply enough sites providing good examples using standard ASCII that there is not really any reason to use examples from a site which makes the user not only jump through one more hoop, but investigate and discover what that hoop actually is. Many people will likely just see the line about this being in Parallax format and automatically assume that they need the Parallax editor to view or edit the files.

If the author felt like spending the extra four seconds or so required to save each file twice (once with control codes, once without) or even add a line of text to the main page of the site explaining how the user can remove the control codes (which are useful only in one editor) that would, in my mind, make it perfectly fine.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's evil or stupid or anything like that. I just think it's bad form.


Torben
 
For the record, I also don't like the fact that (some) editors have the annoying habit of refusing to load a file flat-out because it contains a line of control codes.
That's one of the reasons I love Textpad. It will load absolutely any file, even if it ends up displaying gibberish. It's a great editor and even makes a pretty good IDE. Very configureable and a LOT deeper than it first appears.
 
That's one of the reasons I love Textpad. It will load absolutely any file, even if it ends up displaying gibberish. It's a great editor and even makes a pretty good IDE. Very configureable and a LOT deeper than it first appears.

Looks nice. My favourite for about the last 12 years has been Emacs (https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/ ) but I understand some people find it a bit intimidating. I especially like that I can work just as easily on the command line or in a GUI and extend it myself using Emacs LISP.

Cue the onslaught of vi posts. :)


Torben
 
I used to know emacs (in the 80's). Used it for many years but eventually moved away from it and have never tried it again since.


Na. :p Not so many old timer Linux users here.

I've tried to break away a few times, I just always get frustrated at the limitations of everything else I've tried. Ah well. Maybe someday.


Torben
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

New Articles From Microcontroller Tips

Back
Top