Which uController to learn?



You think? Feel free to post authoritative reference.
--
W "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
. | ,. w ,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@imagenoir.com says...

First, why don't you tell me what you so object to, since you were the person I responded to (and have said nothing more than "you're wrong).
--
Keith


Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you'd actually read the whole post, you would've noticed that I've already posted a link to one reference. You can start there. Once you're done, you can check: <http://www.google.com/search?&q ήfine:RISC&oi=glossary_definition> Be sure to let us all know if you manage to find a reference that agrees with your definition of 'RISC' as meaning: "Reduce Instruction Set Complexity", raher than "Reduced Instruction Set Computer".
--
W "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
. | ,. w ,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@imagenoir.com says...

How about Carnegie Mellon University School of COmputer Science? (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mprice/Relationship%20Strategies.txt)
"The most famous approach to these problems is called RISC, short for Reduced Instruction Set Complexity.
Or, University of Iowa Department of Computer Science http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/assem/summer97/notes/16.html
"As a result, processors designed according to the RISC (reduced instruction set complexity) philosophy..."'
Berkley
http://ptolemy.eecs.berkeley.edu/publications/papers/93/jbuckThesis/t hesis.pdf
"A RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Complexity) processor, as used in most workstations today..."
Sun Microsystems: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5784588.html
"Many architectures, notably reduced instruction set complexity (RISC) architectures such as the Scalable Processor Architecture (SPARC.TM.)..."
MIT Supertech.csail.mit.edu/papers?kuszmaul.ps
"It has been widely argued that one cannot afford to put any new ?academic? mechanisms into state-of-the-art RISC microprocessors because of the billion-dollar investment that is put into such microprocessors. That billion-dollar investment, however, is indicative of the fact that the ?Reduced Instruction Set Complexity? designs have become very complex indeed."
--
Keith

>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[...]

[more cherry picked webpages]
Except that all of those references are all at least 10 years more recent than the invention of the concept, & none of them are actual academic papers. (Hint: they're all 'backronyms': <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backronym )
Googling from some of the same placess: CMU: <http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.cs.cmu.edu+%22reduced+instruction+set+computer Gives 57 results, dating back as far as 1980, including actual published papers, course material & other formal references.
Berkely: <http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aberkeley.edu+%22reduced+instruction+set+computer Gives 141 results similar types to those from CMU.
MIT: <http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amit.edu+%22reduced+instruction+set+computer 106 results, as above.
Iowa U: <http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Auiowa.edu+%22reduced+instruction+set+computer 11 results. (Not exactly a CompSci pioneer, so not very surprising.)
Sun: <http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Asun.com+%22reduced+instruction+set+computer 123 results.
--
W "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
. | ,. w ,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Just to make my point 100% crystal clear, the above should've said: "Googling for 'reduced instruction set COMPUTER' from the same sites:" (As is obvious from the URLs themselves.)

--
W "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
. | ,. w ,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Let me ask that we not take an attack on a particular microcontroller as an attack on one's person. Or one's child. (c: There are preferences, always will be whether we're talking about cars, chips, or... well, tortilla chips.
Tell me what you like and don't, and why. I'm all ears.
--
John English


Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

That's true of more than just UCs. ;-)

Each memory type has its reason. I've found 8051s (variants) quite powerful because of the memory types and the wide variety of peripherals that have been integrated into them.

Again, they're not all "true" bidirectional pins because they're used for multiple purposes. They're not difficult to make into true I/O pins though. With any flexibility you have to trade off some complexity.

I've never used a PIC, though would like to do a job with one. Picking (NPI) up a new processor isn't a big deal once you've seen a few. ;-)
--
Keith

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
krw wrote:

Yes, all computers suck in one way or another. The same applies to all operating systems. Some more than others. ;-)

PICs pretty much have all the same peripherals that I've seen in them. I just don't like the whole MOV MOVX thing. People whine about bank switching on PICs, but the 8052 has some of the same thing. It's not that I hate them, I just don't love them. I don't really love PICs either, but I can live with them for now.
Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not a one tool fits all kind person. All micros have their place, some have more than others. ;-)

That's my point. On allot of micros, you just set some kind of direction flag and voila, no ambiguity.

You should try them sometime, they're not as bad as people let on. They shine in abusive environments and will deliver the current to external devices (usually 20 to 25mA sink or source on most common parts). Hard to kill for the most part and
I've played with a few different micros, but there are still plenty left that I haven't. I do want to play with some of those tiny 32 bit ARMs that have lots of memory and speed.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

True, some OSs suck more than others. OTOH, some suck so much they simply blow.

I haven't looked closely in the past couple of years. 8051s had it all over others several years back. I had plenty of 8051s (and the environment) for my last project so I just used them. only needed ten. ;-)

The 8051 is extreme Harvard. It makes sense once you break the von Neuman mindset. A von Neuman controller is a waste.

How so? ...at least until 64K no bank switching is needed. After 64K, well the 8051 was never intended to be a PeeCee. ;-)

AFAIC, the 8051 is a good choice as a bit-banger, which was what it was designed to do. As I've said, I've never used a PIC (or seriously looked at it, even) so I can't compare the two. My assumption is that the PIC architects aren't brain-dead (like Dimbulb).

I'm not so sure they ALL do. ;-)

There really isn't any ambiguity with an 8051 either. Gazinta bit and a gazouta bit and a couple of rules. Some tieups may be needed for shared pins. Share pins and you'll have that.

I'm certainly not afraid of them, just never had an opportunity. Maybe I'll buy a kit and play.

ARMs don't thrill me much. Too much power. I'd likely have to learn C. ;-)
--
Keith

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Too much for what? The one I am using draws 70mA typical. Of course, you can run an AVR for less than 1mA. In my case, I use an AVR to power control an ARM. The ARM can do the job quicker so both can go back to sleep ASAP.

Why? They work in assemblers too, even if I don't.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@linnix.info-for.us says...

Power as in MIPS, not as in mA. If I want MIPS I'd go with a PPC of some sort.

With the MIPS available one wouldn't likely be doing bit-banging, which is where assembler excels.
--
Keith

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why would too much MIPS bother you? You don't have to use pay per MIPS.

I haven't seen any PPC in low pin count with internal memories yet. The Arm I am using is 64K flash, 8K sram on chip in 48 pins QFP.

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And you are using a AVR to turn it on? I would think a small ARM like that can be throttled down to run at about the same power as an AVR ( 1 mA), the AVR and Atmel ARM's have about the same W/hz, as an example, but the AVR's have much better sleep modes
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 18, 5:11 pm, "bungalow snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com"

Mainly with the clock. The Avr can run down to 32KHz, but the Arm cannot go much below 1MHz (I believe).
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@linnix.info-for.us says...

Certainly you pay for MIPS. They don't give processors away free.

More variables not stated in the parameters.

--
Keith

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The Arm and Avr are close to the same price, around $5 each.

Nothing wrong with PPC, but I would not call it a uC.

So, you don't like it because it's too good for you?

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@linnix.info-for.us says...

AIUI PICs are in the $1 range.

Embedded is embedded.

(now you sound like Dimbulb) I'm not a fscking programmer. I do it because it sometimes needs to be done.
--
Keith

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which just *begs* the question: whose architecture do you consider to be the antithesis of the PIC's? (ie, less obtuse, resulting in your being more productive?)
--
John English


Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John E. wrote:

Almost anything but an 8051?
Actually, just about anything that has a stack-oriented architecture, or a register-oriented architecture with an orthogonal instruction set and decent indexing. If I can, with confidence, slam a bunch of parameters onto the stack or into some registers and call a function without worry, then I'm happy.
The PIC (and the 8051, and some others) are so poor at stack usage and pointer manipulation that unless one wants severely inefficient code one pretty much has to define all the program data as a bunch of globals. If you try to make your life more efficient by programming in C, you'll find that the C compilers for the PIC and 8051 give you a choice between something that isn't quite C, or C code that's _really_, _really_ inefficient. If you want to write assembly using C calling conventions -- well, find another processor, because you can't.
--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.