[Christophe]

Hallo,

Graag zou ik mij een bord kopen van MikroElektronica met een PIC- of
AVR-processor.
De borden zijn enorm veelzijdig vind ik vooral met de vele in-out opties LCD
display en
grafisch touch LCD display.
Wie heeft ervaring met die borden?
In Elektuur heeft men het EasyPIC5-board voorgesteld in een artikel en
geregeld
is er een advertentie te zien wat voor borden MikroElektronica verkoopt.
Wat mijn vraag nu is; Als ik een processor zou willen gebruiken met een
X-tal van 20MHz
zou mij dat dan lukken (een snellere processor dus) aangezien op de borden
verschillende
processoren gebruikt kunnen worden van dezelfde family.
Ik zou ondermeer willen experimenteren met het grafische LCD en daarmee een
audio
analyzer maken.
Nu weet ik niet als zoiets mogelijk is met de Easy Pic5 (pic16F887) of Easy
AVR5A (Atmega16)
of als ik een Big PIC5 (pic 18F8520 at 10MHz) of Big AVR2 (Atmega128 at
10MHz) moet nemen
en als ik dan een nog hoger X-tal kan plaatsen (X-tallen kunnen uitgewisseld
worden).
In het artikel van Elektuur stond ook niet hoe de boarden geprogrammeerd
kunnen worden en als er
software voor te vinden is voor Basic of C taal. De software dat
MikroElektronika voorziet is nogal
prijzig vind ik en ik ben bang als ik niet "hun" software aankoop dat ik ook
niet zoveel zal zijn
met "hun" programmas en leerboeken of heeft de software niets te maken met
de borden?
Ik moet mij terug volledig inwijden in de processoren zodat de PIC of AVR
voor mij niet zoveel
uitmaken als ik maar terug kan programmeren en experimenteren want er zal
waarschijnlijk al heel
wat veranderd zijn sinds de '80C32 basic'.
Ik verkies wel een bord van MikroElektronika door de veelzijdigheid.

Hopelijk krijg ik wat nuttige reactie

Christophe

[John Ferrell]

On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 07:43:16 +0200, "Christophe"
wrote:

Hallo,

Graag zou ik mij een bord kopen van MikroElektronica met een PIC- of
AVR-processor.
De borden zijn enorm veelzijdig vind ik vooral met de vele in-out opties LCD
display en
grafisch touch LCD display.
Wie heeft ervaring met die borden?
In Elektuur heeft men het EasyPIC5-board voorgesteld in een artikel en
geregeld
is er een advertentie te zien wat voor borden MikroElektronica verkoopt.
Wat mijn vraag nu is; Als ik een processor zou willen gebruiken met een
X-tal van 20MHz
zou mij dat dan lukken (een snellere processor dus) aangezien op de borden
verschillende
processoren gebruikt kunnen worden van dezelfde family.
Ik zou ondermeer willen experimenteren met het grafische LCD en daarmee een
audio
analyzer maken.
Nu weet ik niet als zoiets mogelijk is met de Easy Pic5 (pic16F887) of Easy
AVR5A (Atmega16)
of als ik een Big PIC5 (pic 18F8520 at 10MHz) of Big AVR2 (Atmega128 at
10MHz) moet nemen
en als ik dan een nog hoger X-tal kan plaatsen (X-tallen kunnen uitgewisseld
worden).
In het artikel van Elektuur stond ook niet hoe de boarden geprogrammeerd
kunnen worden en als er
software voor te vinden is voor Basic of C taal. De software dat
MikroElektronika voorziet is nogal
prijzig vind ik en ik ben bang als ik niet "hun" software aankoop dat ik ook
niet zoveel zal zijn
met "hun" programmas en leerboeken of heeft de software niets te maken met
de borden?
Ik moet mij terug volledig inwijden in de processoren zodat de PIC of AVR
voor mij niet zoveel
uitmaken als ik maar terug kan programmeren en experimenteren want er zal
waarschijnlijk al heel
wat veranderd zijn sinds de '80C32 basic'.
Ik verkies wel een bord van MikroElektronika door de veelzijdigheid.

Hopelijk krijg ik wat nuttige reactie

Christophe

I do not speak your language. I am very happy with my easyPIC5 Board
and the Pascal Compiler.

John Ferrell W8CCW

[Oppie[_6_]]

"Christophe" wrote in message
...
Hallo,

Translated Dutch to English by www.babelfish.yahoo.com - Not so great with
technical terms.

Gladly I would buy myself a chalkboard of MikroElektronica with PIC- or
AVR-processor. The chalkboards are multi-purpose find I especially with vele
in-out the options LCD enormously posting and graphic touch LCD posting. Who
have does experience with those chalkboards? In Elektuur one has presented
it EasyPIC5-board in Article and regulated there is an advertisement to what
kind of see chalkboards MikroElektronica sells. What my question now is; If
I would want a processor use with X-tal of 20MHz me that then succeed (a
faster processor therefore) since on the chalkboards several processors can
be used of the same family. I among others want experiment with the graphic
LCD and with that audio analyzer make. Now weet I as something like that
possible am not with the Easy Pic5 (pic16F887) or Easy AVR5A (Atmega16) or
if I a piglet PIC5 (pic 18F8520 ate 10MHz) or piglet AVR2 (Atmega128 ate
10MHz) must take and if I can place then still higher X-tal (X-tallen am
possible exchanged become). In Article of Elektuur did not stand also how
the boarden programmed are able and as there software is find for Basic or C
language. Software that MikroElektronika foresee is rather expensive I and I
find am frightened if I not " hun" software purchase that I also so much
will not be with " hun" programmes and learning books or have software do
nothing with the chalkboards? I must entirely inaugurate myself in the
processors so that the PIC or AVR for me not so much determine if I can
program but and experiment because there probably already complete what has
changed since ' 80C32 basic'. I prefer, however, a chalkboard of
MikroElektronika by the veelzijdigheid. Hopelijk krijg I what useful
response Christophe

[John Ferrell]

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:30:51 -0400, "Oppie"
wrote:


"Christophe" wrote in message
...
Hallo,

Translated Dutch to English by www.babelfish.yahoo.com - Not so great with
technical terms.

Gladly I would buy myself a chalkboard of MikroElektronica with PIC- or
AVR-processor. The chalkboards are multi-purpose find I especially with vele
in-out the options LCD enormously posting and graphic touch LCD posting. Who
have does experience with those chalkboards? In Elektuur one has presented
it EasyPIC5-board in Article and regulated there is an advertisement to what
kind of see chalkboards MikroElektronica sells. What my question now is; If
I would want a processor use with X-tal of 20MHz me that then succeed (a
faster processor therefore) since on the chalkboards several processors can
be used of the same family. I among others want experiment with the graphic
LCD and with that audio analyzer make. Now weet I as something like that
possible am not with the Easy Pic5 (pic16F887) or Easy AVR5A (Atmega16) or
if I a piglet PIC5 (pic 18F8520 ate 10MHz) or piglet AVR2 (Atmega128 ate
10MHz) must take and if I can place then still higher X-tal (X-tallen am
possible exchanged become). In Article of Elektuur did not stand also how
the boarden programmed are able and as there software is find for Basic or C
language. Software that MikroElektronika foresee is rather expensive I and I
find am frightened if I not " hun" software purchase that I also so much
will not be with " hun" programmes and learning books or have software do
nothing with the chalkboards? I must entirely inaugurate myself in the
processors so that the PIC or AVR for me not so much determine if I can
program but and experiment because there probably already complete what has
changed since ' 80C32 basic'. I prefer, however, a chalkboard of
MikroElektronika by the veelzijdigheid. Hopelijk krijg I what useful
response Christophe

Check he http://www.mikroe.com/forum/

John Ferrell W8CCW

[Bobby[_3_]]

"Christophe" wrote in message
...
Hallo,

Graag zou ik mij een bord kopen van MikroElektronica met een PIC- of
AVR-processor.
De borden zijn enorm veelzijdig vind ik vooral met de vele in-out opties
LCD
display en
grafisch touch LCD display.
Wie heeft ervaring met die borden?
In Elektuur heeft men het EasyPIC5-board voorgesteld in een artikel en
geregeld
is er een advertentie te zien wat voor borden MikroElektronica verkoopt.
Wat mijn vraag nu is; Als ik een processor zou willen gebruiken met een
X-tal van 20MHz
zou mij dat dan lukken (een snellere processor dus) aangezien op de borden
verschillende
processoren gebruikt kunnen worden van dezelfde family.
Ik zou ondermeer willen experimenteren met het grafische LCD en daarmee
een
audio
analyzer maken.
Nu weet ik niet als zoiets mogelijk is met de Easy Pic5 (pic16F887) of
Easy
AVR5A (Atmega16)
of als ik een Big PIC5 (pic 18F8520 at 10MHz) of Big AVR2 (Atmega128 at
10MHz) moet nemen
en als ik dan een nog hoger X-tal kan plaatsen (X-tallen kunnen
uitgewisseld
worden).
In het artikel van Elektuur stond ook niet hoe de boarden geprogrammeerd
kunnen worden en als er
software voor te vinden is voor Basic of C taal. De software dat
MikroElektronika voorziet is nogal
prijzig vind ik en ik ben bang als ik niet "hun" software aankoop dat ik
ook
niet zoveel zal zijn
met "hun" programmas en leerboeken of heeft de software niets te maken met
de borden?
Ik moet mij terug volledig inwijden in de processoren zodat de PIC of AVR
voor mij niet zoveel
uitmaken als ik maar terug kan programmeren en experimenteren want er zal
waarschijnlijk al heel
wat veranderd zijn sinds de '80C32 basic'.
Ik verkies wel een bord van MikroElektronika door de veelzijdigheid.

Hopelijk krijg ik wat nuttige reactie

Christophe


Hello,

Ek gebruik MikroElektronica se Pascal program MicroPascal om PIC uP te
programeer nou vir al 4 jaar - dit is oulik. Die eenigste probleem is dat
MicroPascal gebruik te veel 'overhead' - as jy wil meer lyne van code kry
dan die beste is stil Assembley met MPLAB.

[Stan Starinski]

I am really against Mikroelektronika and the fact their IDE is not free,
unlike Microchip MPLAB IDE.

I would suggest Microchip ICD3, MPLAB IDE, and QL200 as development board
UNLESS that board is not using MPLAB + C18 which I don't know yet.
I just stick with manufactuer's own solutions, not Mikroelectronika and
their Basic or Pascal language.

Are you SERIOUS?
Basic is a TOY language. It's only good for non-critical and small
projects, and VisualBasic is only good for creating GUI and simple
scripts/automation.
Anything complicated written in Basic is prone to bugs and failures, it's
unfit for industrial applications.

On the contrary, C language is used to create OTHER languages and whole
operating systems and is a de-facto standard for critical apps.
It's clear why you and some others choose Mikroelektronika dev board and
their lame Basic compiler/interpreter - simplicity.

OK if simplicity is the goal and you're not a professional engineer, go with
it.

But if you want to be a professional - drop Basic for embedded design today.
Start learning C language.

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 22:41:38 -0500, "Stan Starinski"
wrote:

I am really against Mikroelektronika and the fact their IDE is not free,
unlike Microchip MPLAB IDE.

I would suggest Microchip ICD3, MPLAB IDE, and QL200 as development board
UNLESS that board is not using MPLAB + C18 which I don't know yet.
I just stick with manufactuer's own solutions, not Mikroelectronika and
their Basic or Pascal language.

Are you SERIOUS?
Basic is a TOY language. It's only good for non-critical and small
projects, and VisualBasic is only good for creating GUI and simple
scripts/automation.
Anything complicated written in Basic is prone to bugs and failures, it's
unfit for industrial applications.

On the contrary, C language is used to create OTHER languages and whole
operating systems and is a de-facto standard for critical apps.
It's clear why you and some others choose Mikroelektronika dev board and
their lame Basic compiler/interpreter - simplicity.

OK if simplicity is the goal and you're not a professional engineer, go with
it.

But if you want to be a professional - drop Basic for embedded design today.
Start learning C language.

Get off your throne: "C is better" must have the proper qualifiers.

I used C on PDP 11/70 (UNIX), OS/9 (multi-user on a 1MHz 6809), and
80x86 platforms. I used assembly on PDP 11/70 (UNIX), 6809, and Z80.
I've also used *good* compiled BASIC on multiple platforms.

In the days of Turbo Basic and Turbo C on the PC, the compiler engine
was the same, the only difference was the front end. If there are
equivalent quality compilers for both languages on a given platform,
BASIC usually beats C in development speed - no need to write a
"middle of the string" function because the assembly version is
already in the BASIC compiler.

John

retired AT&T / Bell Labs "skunk works" programmer

[cavelamb]

C sucks.

All of the complexity of Assembly - with none of the benefits.

[Jasen Betts[_2_]]

On 2010-02-28, wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 22:41:38 -0500, "Stan Starinski"
wrote:

I am really against Mikroelektronika and the fact their IDE is not free,
unlike Microchip MPLAB IDE.


Get off your throne: "C is better" must have the proper qualifiers.

I used C on PDP 11/70 (UNIX), OS/9 (multi-user on a 1MHz 6809), and
80x86 platforms. I used assembly on PDP 11/70 (UNIX), 6809, and Z80.
I've also used *good* compiled BASIC on multiple platforms.

In the days of Turbo Basic and Turbo C on the PC, the compiler engine
was the same, the only difference was the front end. If there are
equivalent quality compilers for both languages on a given platform,
BASIC usually beats C in development speed - no need to write a
"middle of the string" function because the assembly version is
already in the BASIC compiler.

no need to write a middle-of-sting function in c. use strlcpy or
one of the *printf variants as apropriate.

it's easier than writing qsort in basic


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[m II]

Stan Starinski wrote:

OK if simplicity is the goal and you're not a professional engineer, go
with it.

But if you want to be a professional - drop Basic for embedded design
today.
Start learning C language.



*Real* men program in Forth.





mike




--
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /
/ /\ \/ /\'Think tanks cleaned cheap' /\ \/ /
/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/

Densa International©
For the OTHER two percent.



Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage,
I block all postings with a Gmail, Google Mail,
Google Groups or Hotmail address.
I also filter everything from a .cn server.


For solutions which may work for you, please check:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

[hamilton[_2_]]

On 4/15/2010 3:24 PM, m II wrote:
Stan Starinski wrote:

OK if simplicity is the goal and you're not a professional engineer,
go with it.

But if you want to be a professional - drop Basic for embedded design
today.
Start learning C language.



*Real* men program in Forth.

Real men program in Assembly, "You don't need no stinking High Level
Language"

;-)


hamilton

[Bill Garber[_3_]]

"m II" wrote in message
...
Stan Starinski wrote:
OK if simplicity is the goal and you're not a professional engineer, go with it. But if you want to be a professional -drop Basic
for embedded design today. Start learning C language.

*Real* men program in Forth.

mike

Ah, but they drink from Fifths. LMAO!!!!!

Bill

[m II]

Bill Garber wrote:

*Real* men program in Forth.

Ah, but they drink from Fifths. LMAO!!!!!


But this is what drove them to it....

BinaryExpr(ExprT1 e1, ExprT2 e2,BinOp op=BinOp())
: _expr1(e1),_expr2(e2),_op(op) {}
double eval() const
{ return _op(_expr1.eval(),_expr2.eval()); }




mike




--
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /
/ /\ \/ /\'Think tanks cleaned cheap' /\ \/ /
/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/

Densa International©
For the OTHER two percent.



Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage,
I block all postings with a Gmail, Google Mail,
Google Groups or Hotmail address.
I also filter everything from a .cn server.


For solutions which may work for you, please check:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

[Bill Garber[_3_]]

"m II" wrote in message
...
Bill Garber wrote:
*Real* men program in Forth.

Ah, but they drink from Fifths. LMAO!!!!!

But this is what drove them to it....
BinaryExpr(ExprT1 e1, ExprT2 e2,BinOp op=BinOp()) : _expr1(e1),_expr2(e2),_op(op) {} double eval() const { return
_op(_expr1.eval(),_expr2.eval()); }
mike

AHHHHHHHH!!!, what the heck is that? |:^O

BTW, I started to learn C once, for the Apple II,
and I quit that really quickly. Anything that can
do in 100 lines, I can do in Assembly in 25 lines.

Bill

[m II]

Bill Garber wrote:


BinaryExpr(ExprT1 e1, ExprT2 e2,BinOp op=BinOp()) : _expr1(e1),_expr2(e2),_op(op) {} double eval() const { return
_op(_expr1.eval(),_expr2.eval()); }
mike

AHHHHHHHH!!!, what the heck is that? |:^O

BTW, I started to learn C once, for the Apple II,
and I quit that really quickly. Anything that can
do in 100 lines, I can do in Assembly in 25 lines.


I'm a rank beginner with only a bit of programming behind me. I can do a
bit of Pascal and did a bit of elementary Fortran back in '84.

My present association with C wasn't really my choice. I picked up an
Arduino board a few weeks ago and the user interface is a version of C.
There are enough examples in the open software kit that I can cut and
paste together enough code to do a solar tracker or heating setup.

From what little I've seen of it and my own limited experience, I'm
very tempted to say that C is a dog's breakfast. I may well be wrong,
but at this stage I still use a long stick to poke at it.

I also started with small computers (Commodore Vic 20 and C64) outfitted
with a Forth cartridge. I wanted to drive a little homemade plotter.

It was a disaster. Not the coding so much, but the mechanics of the
machine. I used 1/4 inch threaded rod for the X and Y axis movements.
They were driven by four wire stepper motors.

Up until that time I didn't have a real appreciation for the term
'resonance'.

At full tilt, I swear I could see the rods forming portions of a sine
wave. Noisy too.





mike

[T[_2_]]

In article ,
says...

On 4/15/2010 3:24 PM, m II wrote:
Stan Starinski wrote:

OK if simplicity is the goal and you're not a professional engineer,
go with it.

But if you want to be a professional - drop Basic for embedded design
today.
Start learning C language.



*Real* men program in Forth.

Real men program in Assembly, "You don't need no stinking High Level
Language"

;-)


hamilton

Some of us just flip switches in octal.

[m II]

T wrote:

Some of us just flip switches in octal.






163 151 143 153 160 165 160 160 171






mike

[T[_2_]]

In article , says...

T wrote:

Some of us just flip switches in octal.






163 151 143 153 160 165 160 160 171






mike

Not sick, just enjoy number systms a little too much.

[m II]

T wrote:

163 151 143 153 160 165 160 160 171

Not sick, just enjoy number systms a little too much.


CLVII CLIII





mike

[John Ferrell[_2_]]

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 22:41:38 -0500, "Stan Starinski"
wrote:

I am really against Mikroelektronika and the fact their IDE is not free,
unlike Microchip MPLAB IDE.

I would suggest Microchip ICD3, MPLAB IDE, and QL200 as development board
UNLESS that board is not using MPLAB + C18 which I don't know yet.
I just stick with manufactuer's own solutions, not Mikroelectronika and
their Basic or Pascal language.

Are you SERIOUS?
Basic is a TOY language. It's only good for non-critical and small
projects, and VisualBasic is only good for creating GUI and simple
scripts/automation.
Anything complicated written in Basic is prone to bugs and failures, it's
unfit for industrial applications.

On the contrary, C language is used to create OTHER languages and whole
operating systems and is a de-facto standard for critical apps.
It's clear why you and some others choose Mikroelektronika dev board and
their lame Basic compiler/interpreter - simplicity.

OK if simplicity is the goal and you're not a professional engineer, go with
it.

But if you want to be a professional - drop Basic for embedded design today.
Start learning C language.

If you limit yourself to a single programming language you become a
"One Trick Pony"! Until you grasp the basics of each you cannot
appreciate their respective values. My personal favorite is Pascal. I
like to use Procedures as well as functions.

OTH, "c" as defined by K&R will accomplish the same goals with fewer
instructions for the programmer to remember. It does the heavy lifting
through the many libraries. Its limitations are intentional: Many of
the features in Pascal are inclined to generate big, slow code.

Basic started small and simple but has grown into a mature language
that is popular and efficient.

All three have instruction sets that permit and encourage manipulation
at the bit/byte level. That is important to me.

Today's really big curse is the IDE that comes with most packages.
They all seem different and have their own quirks. Learning the
language has become secondary to learning the "current environment'.
Programming for a Windows environment is different than programming
for a Linux or an embedded environment.

Higher level languages have more limitations but in general take less
manpower to get a given job done, IF that given job is a good fit to
that language.

If you are making your living as a programmer or developer the market
or your employer will make the decision for you so what is best is not
your decision!



Whatever you prefer, it hampers your personal development to become a
"one trick pony".
John Ferrell W8CCW