Lpc2000

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Robert Adsett <subscriptions@a...> wrote:

> Actually given gcc's availability I don't see a lot of need for large 
> amounts of assembly, but not everyone is likely to agree :)

I think everyone would agree with this. We sometimes need assembler,
but it's use should be rare. Only drivers, compiler libraries, or
special speed-critical code should be done in assembler.

Even Forth is better than assembler in cases where C is not
appropriate. But Forth has a learning curve in order to be very
productive with it. I find assembler to be easier to work with for
people who have already been exposed to some flavor of assembler.

My main involvement with assembler is for college classes that teach
the low-level architecture. They also emphasize standard syntax
because they use official documentation as reference material.

I've recommended the IAR EWARM free version, but some professors don't
like to do that for some reason. I think it depends on who is in the
legal department and whether they take the time to actually look at
the license agreement seriously. Many professors just don't even take
it to the legal department for review - they just assume the answer is
going to be "no".

Tip to tool vendors: please consider making a custom educational
license that is easy to understand (if the professor sees it as a
no-brainer he's more likely to ask the legal department for a ruling
on it). You want your tools to get used by students because they are
tomorrow's engineers. Wouldn't it be great if they already had some
exposure to your tools in class? People like to select tools that are
familiar to them.

Eric