The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: Michel Catudal
Subject: Re: Which basic compiler to buy?
Date: 21 Dec 2002 20:24:11 -0600
Organization: Pas =?ISO-8859-1?Q?organis=E9?= par Ti-Mou
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
X-Accept-Language: fr-CA, Joual, en-US
Richard Steven Walz wrote:
>>You misunderstand the whole point. Basic is not a serious programming
>>language for microcontrollers.
> Nothing but your desperate hope, you mean!
> Which is surely why there is a BASIC for every one of them that more
> people are using than anything else! Viz, BASIC Stamps, PBASIC, various
> PICBasics, 8052-BASIC, a NEW MCS-52 BASIC, a couple new take-offs on the
> Stamp, several BASICs for AVR, etc. BASIC can actually be shown to be more
> suitable to uC's merely because it can be tailored to be an assembler for
> uC's much less problematically than using C as an "assembler" for such a
> dedicated target! I don't mind C, I even like it myself, but you C-prudes
> are sure embarrassingly immature assholes.
You obviously have never worked in the electronic industry.
The 8052-basic is a design of the early 80s and I've never
heard an Intel salesman talk about it. Intel probably doesn't
make it anymore. Try finding mention of it on their web site for
A few companies who make their money with hobbyists have come up
with basic for the 80C51, AVR and PIC but this isn't used at all
in the electronic industry at large. You will have more chances
of finding people using Forth or Pascal than basic when people aren't
Some of the most used processors are MC68HC05 and OTP PICs (PIC16C71,72,72
PIC 12C5x), H8. None are using basic. List me an engine controller or hard
disk controller that was written in basic on an 80C186, 80C196, 68HC11
fujitsu or NEC processor, H8 or other.
>>Ideally you'd want to program in
>>assembler for optimized code but this is not a logical option because
>>assembler is too hard to follow by anybody else but the programmer who
>>wrote the code and it takes too long to write code in assembler. Time
>>is money and C is more appropriate to use so we can bring code quickly
>>onto the market. There is nothing religious about making a comparision
>>of different programming languages.
> Using BASIC-like commands for a tailored assembler is optimum, since
> so many C programmers are insufferable purists! BASIC afficiandos don't
> give a damn, which makes it perfect! The BASIC can be butchered and
> altered and nobody CARES!
We need some structure so we can work in groups and we can remember what we
did after a few days. You will never keep a job doing embedded programming
if you insist on programming in basic. Siemens uses Visual Basic for their
test fixtures but no one is using this in small microcontroller where memory
is small and speed is a key to doing the job.
Just remember that if you ever want to earn a living in programming you'll
have to learn how to program in a real computer language.
>>C is very simple. The problem with basic is that it is not very efficient
>>for coding on a microcontroller. Basic is well suite for spaghetti coding
>>and C is well suited for well written coding.
> Assembler *IS* spaghetti-code, it is unstructured, and it is
> NON-documented! Sounds like BASIC!
Nonsense. Well written assembler language can be efficient and can be
well structured. The reality is that most people aren't good enough
programmers to be able to make efficient coding in assembler. In most
cases the C compiler does a better job. Ideally you should be able
to do a better job with an assembler than a C compiler but the reality is
other. You can after a lot of experience come to that point but it is not
very efficient and most company will fire you if you insist on writing in
assembler. In the 70s and 80s we had no choice because the ram and rom were
extremmely expensive and it was worth spending several days on some code to
save a few bytes. I once spent almost a whole day finding a way to fit one
byte in a rom. What I did was enter an operation in machine code. The
assembler missed an opportunity to save a byte.
We would have been shot if we'd suggested using basic.
>>For some microcontrollers the C Compiler may not be efficient, the key
>>is to use one that is efficient. I personnally prefer Pascal but efficient
>>C Compilers are easier to find than efficient pascal compilers.
>>Tell to Freightliner or GM that you want to use basic on a cluster to see
>>how loud they'd laugh at you.
> Nothing but more immature self-embarrassing snobbery.
Nothing to do with snobbery, just common sense.
Tired of Microsoft's rebootive multitasking?
then it's time to upgrade to Linux.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup