AVR-Chat

Mike Perks wrote:

>here we go. I have to completely disagree with Tom's assertion. ASM and 
>the associated toolset has a VERY steep learning curve. Just to do 
>something simple requires quite a bit of knowledge and lot of other 
>ancilliary things from programmers to AVR debugging skills.This is probably going to start a whole new religious discussion but
>  
>
   Naw, no religious argumentation from this quarter.  We disagree, and 
that's just fine.  I started programming by learning BASIC-Plus under 
RSTS/E on a time sharing system at college. I disliked BASIC intensely, 
and determined to teach myself assemly language for the PDP-11/45.  It 
was a snap (of course, coming into as I was from being an electronics 
hobbyist and having worked with digital logic helped immensely).  After 
learning assembly language, I felt I had a much stronger grasp on what 
the machine was doing, which has always made it easier for me to 
determine the "best" way to get the machine to do what I want it to do.

   Different strokes for different folks,m is my motto. 

| As a beginner it might be best to start with a platform where a lot of 
| the work has already been done for you. My suggestion is to use 
| something like the ZBasic (http://www.zbasic.net/ ) and the  Basic Stamp 
| pin-compatible ZX-24 that uses an ATMega32. Then when you get more 
| proficient (and interested) you could move to Bascom or C. The cost of 
| the ZX-24 might seem high but remember it has a lot of built in hardware 
| and firmware to make it easy to use.

   I guess it all depends on his target. If he simply has a few things 
he'd like to acocmplish with embedded controllers, and no particular 
interest in really learning about controllers, computing, etc., then 
your approach is probabky ideal.  If, on the other hand,m he wants to 
learn what makes controllers rtick, and how programming works, then it 
may not be as good an idea.  hard for either you or me to say.  Only he 
can make that decision.

tom