pic and oopic: what is the difference?

An OOPIC *is* a PIC microcontroller, but because it runs an interpreter, it is many times slower than a PIC running native code. OOPICs are great for protyping, but if you want to get the most flexibility, learn PIC asssembler.

PeterS Remove my PANTS to reply.

PIC is the basic microcontroller family - of which there are now 70 or

80 or more different chips. OOPic is a preprogrammed PIC, with a large number of "objects" built in [I/O functions, PWM, A/D, motor/stepper/sensor objects, on and on], and which works in a fashion similar to the Basic Stamp. However, the OOPic is a lot faster than the B.Stamp when the objects are used properly, and it has some multi-tasking capabilities built-in.

- dan michaels

===========================

The oopic has many built in objects (LED, Motor Control, various sensors) that allow you easily get an application running by writing simple basic like programs that would take some serious skill to duplicate in either C or ASM on a PIC. The oopic objects hides all the complexity of the PIC but even allow low level assess if needed.

Since the oopic is interprets PCode it is slower than a compiled application but it is still plenty fast enough to get many complex applications done.

oopics are perfect for hobbiests building robots and such. If you have something you want to mass produce or needs the speed, you might be better off working directly with the a PIC in C or ASM.

oopics are great introduction to embedded programming as you can be up and running 5 minutes after you open the box.

Ken

Absolutely true. And after you learn assembler, which helps you understand the PIC hardware, move to a C compiler. I have recently started using the CCS C compiler and I will never go back. It rocks!

BRW

Can I program a OOPic as plain PIC using assembler? Or I MUST use those objects?

Might as well just buy a standard PIC then. The OOPIC is just software really when you compare it and a "naked" PIC chip.

So, if you are planning to do all the number crunching on a PC and are just using the OOPIC as an interface to the hardware it should be plenty fast enough right?

So, if you plan to do the number crunching on a PC and just use the PIC as the hardware interface, OOPIC should be plenty fast enough right?

But then why waste the money on an OOPIC when you could get a normal PIC for *much* less money and use any of a variety of languages already available?

Sometimes it goes in complect with something usefull (as usefull as robot) but you don't have an option to say: Please I would like to buy only PIC with no OO.

I get the impression that OOPICs are a little simpler for a beginner to get started, am I wrong?

BTW sorry about the double post.

I've never used one, but to me it just seems unnecessarily limiting. It can only be programmed on one platform and only in one of three langauges.

Whereas if you get a real PIC, you save money, can program it from any platform, and have a wide choice of languages many of which are as easy or easier than the OOPIC langauge.

To Alexander Gorshenev : right, I hadn't though about the OOPIC coming with a robot and not having the option of using a different one. From the original question I had assumed there was a choice to be made.

So now I can ask again: If I got a robot with OOPic, then can I deal with that OOPic as with plain PIC or that would be impossible? Please excuse my total ignorance but I don't feel like I have got the answer for this question still.

horsh

Many apologies. You *cannot* program the OOPIC in assembler, you must use one of the supplied langauges and you must use the provided development environment (windows based only i think).

The OOPIC is simply an interpreter programmed into a standard PIC. If you've a PIC programmer, you *might* be able to erase the interpreter & then have a standard PIC back, I don't know.

If you want to use assembler & have a few extra $, I think you can pickup a PIC for $8.00 that has a built-in bootloader so you needn't have a PIC programer.