Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
David Prentice
01/19/12 08:15
Read: 565 times

#185566 - Are you serious?
Responding to: Erik Malund's previous message
Erik Malund said:

Learning how to use the internet wisely is the important lesson.

cheap fatty sausage
whatever you get from the net is worthless un less you are able to code the routine(s) yourself. If you do not have the capability to fully understand the routine(s) you will be stuck with "the little fix" that always is required to use downloaded stuff

This seems a little conceited. I used printf() or ctime() well before I understood how they worked, or how to code them myself. Even now, I see little point in writing them myself. After all, there are fully working implementations out there.

I do see that it is 100% important to read and understand the documentation. And even more so, to follow the rules meticulously.
It is also wise to have an open mind, and write my own test routines to verify the documentation.

The punter who can almost code everything herself is more of a liability than she who makes wise use of prior knowledge.

You will seldom need to write ASM for most modern microcontrollers. However it is useful to be able to read ASM on occasions to understand the efficiency of a HLL compiler.
if you need to "understand the efficiency" you should not use C in the first place, Even more important is that you are able to "think ASM" since 'C' assumes that all I/O is taken care of (fopen - fread - ...) and I/O is so close to the hardware that "thinking C" will get you lost. I am NOT discussing what language to write it in, I am discussing the mindset.

I understand your point of view. I agree that it is sensible to think in your language of choice. If it is elegant in C it is generally fairly efficient.

At the same time reading a language is very different to writing. I will quite happily read ARM or MSP430 with no intention of ever writing in those assembly languages. However you only ever need to do this when you have some critical timing. 99.95% of application code area is not critical. Sometimes the remaining 0.05% of code space can use 50% of execution time.

using debugged library code
even 'debugged' (it often is not) you still, in most cases, need to adapt a bit, thus 'using' is crap, 'understanding' is correct.


Yes. Of course you need to adapt. e.g. from 93c46 specific code to a 93c66.

Anyone not prepared to read, understand, adapt has little prospect. We all had to start somewhere!


List of 49 messages in thread
interfacing with 93c66      Anil Kumar      01/14/12 01:04      
   Interfacing AT93CXXX Serial EEPROMs with AT89LP MCUs      Jan Waclawek      01/14/12 04:20      
      Direct Links      Michael Karas      01/14/12 11:04      
   interfacing ith93c66      Anil Kumar      01/16/12 03:09      
      Better Learn Both      Michael Karas      01/16/12 18:01      
      How about the 8051 code library?      Neil Kurzman      01/16/12 23:30      
         interfacing with 93c66      Anil Kumar      01/18/12 22:51      
            An exercise for the reader      David Prentice      01/19/12 01:20      
               interfacing with 93c66      Anil Kumar      01/19/12 22:59      
      Then you need to learn...      Robert Revens      01/19/12 05:34      
         I disgaree        David Prentice      01/19/12 06:25      
            cheap fatty sausage      Erik Malund      01/19/12 07:04      
               Understanding the mapping important      Per Westermark      01/19/12 07:43      
                  out of context      Erik Malund      01/19/12 09:13      
                  So exactly what was the disagreement???      Per Westermark      01/20/12 02:52      
                     I agree with you      David Prentice      01/20/12 03:55      
                        Don't simplify to believe it's about fastest speed      Per Westermark      01/20/12 05:27      
                        again      Erik Malund      01/20/12 07:48      
                     true      Erik Malund      01/20/12 07:42      
               Are you serious?      David Prentice      01/19/12 08:15      
                  also out of context      Erik Malund      01/19/12 09:16      
               Missing the point!      Andy Neil      01/19/12 12:19      
                  the full monte      Erik Malund      01/19/12 12:37      
   interfacing with 93c66      Anil Kumar      01/26/12 21:56      
      And your work      Per Westermark      01/27/12 02:46      
      plz check it      Andy Neil      01/27/12 06:58      
      ,sometimes you have to be VERY specific      Erik Malund      01/27/12 07:31      
      wrong strategy and many errors      Stefan KAnev      01/30/12 04:12      
   interfacing with 93c66      Anil Kumar      01/28/12 03:16      
      why do you resist using external ram?      Erik Malund      01/28/12 08:58      
         interfacing with 93c66      Anil Kumar      01/29/12 02:21      
            Payed support not good enough?        Per Westermark      01/29/12 03:18      
               interfacing with 93c66      Anil Kumar      01/29/12 22:29      
                  Any Specific Reason for using...      Maunik Choksi      01/29/12 23:09      
                     interfacing with 93c66      Anil Kumar      01/29/12 23:33      
                        please explain      Andy Neil      01/30/12 14:39      
                        It is advisable to use alternate available....      Maunik Choksi      01/30/12 22:37      
                           interfacing with 93c66      Anil Kumar      01/31/12 22:06      
                              Can you elaborate it ?      Maunik Choksi      01/31/12 22:44      
                                 interfacing with 93c66      Anil Kumar      01/31/12 22:51      
                                    You give me your email-id      Maunik Choksi      01/31/12 22:53      
                                       email id      Anil Kumar      01/31/12 22:57      
                                          Ok      Maunik Choksi      01/31/12 22:58      
                  Wrong - you are just not responding to on-topic questions      Per Westermark      01/30/12 03:00      
                  you've got plenty of suggestions      Erik Malund      01/30/12 06:53      
                     Off-topic but Siemens/seconds...      Per Westermark      01/30/12 08:04      
                     funny result      Erik Malund      02/02/12 09:20      
                        Output      Per Westermark      02/02/12 15:14      
   still waiting      Erik Malund      02/01/12 06:49      

Back to Subject List