🚀 go-pugleaf

On Oct 30, 4:57 am, Al Borowski <al.borow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Briefly, the Modified-Harvard architecture used in the PIC devices
> > separates the program memory from the data memory, in other words
> > separates the ROM/FLASH program memory from the RAM.
>
> [...]
>
> Yes, but there's more to to a uC core then choosing between Harvard or
> Von Neumann. I think most of the PICs quirks come from the other
> decisions made.
>
> The PIC (up to 16 bit cores anyway) is an accumulator architecture -
> you have to funnel everything through the W register.

Going with accumulator model allowed Microchip to make the processor
with fewer transistors. It is a trade off that can break either way.
If you have a limit on the chip size you can make a higher performance
processor that is harder to program.


[....]
> in the 16 bit core thankfully). Personally, I think the most annoying
> thing about programming PICs in assembly are the btfsc (test a bit in
> 'file', skip the next instruction if it's clear) and btfss (same thing
> but skip if set) instructions. Why they couldn't just call these ifbit
> and ifnbit, I don't know :-)

Does ifbit mean skip if the bit is set or do the instruction if the
bit is set?

>
> Back to the OP, great job Microchip on the video. It's a nice contrast
> to TI, who recently sent misleading DMCA notices to people who tried
> installing after-market OSs on their graphics calculators (http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10374284-264.html)
>
> Cheers,
>
> A;

I still prefer the 8051.  It is way better.
[ducks]