17 Apr
2009
17 Apr
'09
5:33 p.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
Nor do I. Most of what I do with microcontrollers is essentaily
complicated bit-twiddling, and it's easier to do that in assembly
language where you then haev a good idea what the chip should be doing
Last time I looked at the BASIC Stamp, you wrote
the program on a PC and
compiled it to a pseudocode that was downloaded to the Stamp and
interpretted there. I have no idea of the performance of that, the
documetnation that was available didn't seem to go to a low enough level
to work it out.
I don't know why people are so fond of the BASIC Stamp. It seems to add One of the reasons I ditched PIC in favour of AVR is
that the avr-gcc
toolchain is far more robust than any of the PIC assemblers. The PIC,
however, is a very very simple processor and you could knock up an
assembler for it on any machine you liked in an afternoon. Anyway, I
thought you had a 486 running Linux?
I do. Which means I can run PIC, 8048 and 8051 cross-assemblers, and I
assume there's an AVR one too (if not, I could write one). But I didn't
think the STAMP toolkit came for linux, and I didn't think the STAMP ws
sufficiently-well documented to write your own tools.
-tony