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: 25 Dec 2002 09:02:11 -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:
> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> Michel Catudal wrote:
>>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.
> My employers would be amused to hear that, since they paid me enough.
>>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
> It was an amusement for them. And theirs was NOT the popular market,
> but the industrial.
Wrong! at the time basic was still about the only affordable stuff
on computers. Fortran, pascal and C compilers were too costly and
Intel was having a hard time getting people to adopt their PLM.
They dropped the part after realizing that there was not much a market
for it. You will still find parts around but that's not current production
Intel has sold a lot of parts, they tend to be pricy for low quantity
but when you hit the magic number they're with all the other ones.
I've designed with NEC parts because the quotes were all lower than
anyone but when production came Intel had often the best prices.
Intel lost the compiler war to motorola and AT&T as they were pushing
PLM and not C. The 8096 was designed for programming in PLM much like
the AVR was designed to program in C.
>>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
> Advanced BASICs ARE used more in the higher level software industry, and
> the production of cliche C programmers by institutions contributed to
> their shrinkage with time, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with
> actual utility. Most apps written in c could as easily be written in
> an Advanced BASIC compiler and yield the same sized code.
>>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.
> Those are written in assembler, often using C as the assembler, but that's
You are way behind in technology, you obviously have no clue about the
electronic industry. There are still programmers who insist on programming
in assembler but this a disapearing breed as most employers won't put up
with that. The language of choice is C for small embedded system and C
and C+ for large embedded system.
My favorite is actually pascal which I use at home. I will eventually port
a pascal compiler to the AVR.
>>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.
> And you're propagandizing madly here to try to make that a self-fulfulling
>>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.
> I already did, moron. I got tired of it and went back to hardware!
Translation : you were not able to learn.
>>>>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.
> C doesn't help this.
>>In most cases the C compiler does a better job.
> Again, circularly, ONLY because of propagadizing like yours here.
It wasn't me saying that, this has been proven in the industry.
>>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
> Nobody has EVER told me what to write IN. And that's a lie, the assembler
> programmer with familiar libraries is MUCh faster and smaller than ANY C
> programmer, but they are few and far between.
Most companies will require the programming be done in C for practical
reasons. It is more efficient in coding and easier to follow. Try to
get an interview for programming stating that you only program in basic
and assembler and you'll find out that your choices are very limited.
You might not even get an inteview as you résumé will end up in the trash.
Back in the 80s most people were writing in assember in the car industry
because of the cost. Saving 10˘ is often an issue in a design so you
try to squeeze as much as you can in a part. Nowadays many small micros
come with enough ram and flash and C Compilers are efficient. I've done
an 8051 design where the C Compiler was so bad that I had to use assembler
instead but that's something like 10 years ago. You basically have to get
a compiler that does the job and they are available today.
Writing in assembler is not accepted in most companies nowadays because of
past experiences. A programmer leaves a messy program and no one can follow
up on it. With C it can be problematic if there are no comments and strange
variables are used but it is far easier to figure out than a messed up
assembler program. Very often the assembler program has to be rewritten
>>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.
> You clearly have NO idea what a quality macro library is, and yet you
> tout C? Could it be that YOU don't actually KNOW any C??
There are good and bad libraries in C. When I use small microcontrollers I
tend to ignore the libraries in embedded environments and write my own. C
can be as efficient as the programmer. Basic is only efficient if the
library is but there is no basic library that can compare with libraries
like those of IAR or GCC C compilers.
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