Lpc2000

I started using the lpc2000 chips as a replacement for
my pic and avr set. Even ARM is aiming at the 8-bit
market with the arm7 core (and with the lpc2101,
they're actually cheaper than many 8-bitters).

I'd prefer to start with assembly code (thumb likely)
for small and highly predictable code. For more
complex stuff I'd use chips with bigger ram/flash and
RTOSes, which frequently demand the use of C as in
Keil compiler C or GCC. If a free arm assembler with
the traditional arm syntax is available, I'd be one of
the users. I however admit I havent taken a closer
look at the gcc's arm assembler yet.


--- Eric Engler <englere.geo@...> wrote:

> --- 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
> 
> 
> 
>