I really *really* like the look of "FlowCode"! :-D - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: iamwhoiam
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2012, 12:11:15 am
content: FlowCode for PIC, AVR etc. Dave Jones, your "mail bag" video got me looking at this; THANKS!Why did noone tell me before? LOL!Your first program:Just when I said I was sick of programming and trying to learn... haha. It's all HIS fault --->

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2012, 01:30:48 am
content: The problem I have with using flowcharts to program is that they are fine if you are toggling a single bit, but I find a whole program written in flowcharts to be totally incomprehensible.Text-based code ends up being much easier to follow, as you can add as much extra documentation to each routine as you like.Flow chart programming could be useful as an intermediate stage to bridge people from the Novice stage to coding, but after that, I think it would be a waste of time.I guess if could be good as well for people who do not want to learn programming and just want to do simple control tasks with their micro. Flowcode could be a good option for some people.Richard.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2012, 01:46:18 am
content: Although it has to be said that graphical programming tools are very common in the automation world for programming PLCs and the like. Ladder logic, state machines and sequence programs are naturally expressed graphically. I think it depends a little on the domain.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2012, 02:13:02 am
content: Eventually someone probably will invent a graphical object based programming language that's as powerful as a text language and faster to create even the most complex programs.It will probably use some combination of touchscreen and/or gestures to manipulate a 3D view/design of the program and all it's functions.Going to be an interesting day to be a programmer when it happens.My guess is it's not as far away as people think.Phones are getting more and more powerful and it's only a matter of time before people will need to write/maintain programs using a phone touchscreen.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 14, 2012, 02:24:03 am
content: I can't believe the number of Youtube comments where people cannot understand the value (and cost/effort) of software and good documentation...Dave.

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2012, 02:51:30 am
content: It looks to me that a really huge amount of work has gone into developing this suite of tools and I do not find the cost surprising at all.To have the one graphical programming tool that seemlessly works with 4 totally different microprocessors families, and a programmable logic chip (even if it is old) is an impressive effort.One problem I can see for the company is that many of the PCB's are so simple, I can see colleges making their own copies of the peripheral boards.

author: Hypernova
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 14, 2012, 05:10:44 am
content: Graphical programming is a complete cluster fuck if you need to implement signal processing that need loops and if/else/switch function. If your function can be nicely pipe-lined or can be cleanly described by FSM's it's great.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 14, 2012, 05:13:29 am
content: Quote from: iamwhoiam on May 14, 2012, 02:47:34 amAs amspire said.They have developed this flowcode software presumably from scratch, and it seems like they have put a LOT of effort into producing learning materials for school.Developing all that learning material can take an order of magnitude more work than producing the hardware!If that material is sufficient for school lessons, then the teachers don't have to waste their time writing and that's worth a LOT.Yet many commenters just can't seem to grasp why a PIC development board is worth $600. They just don't get it, it's got nothing to do with the hardware.Are they supposed to just give away the software and learning materials? Of course not, that's not their business model, and that's what took them the most amount of time to develop, so they are going to charge for that.Dave.

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2012, 05:26:53 am
content: Such graphical programming systems only bring you so far ----><----. Which isn't very far. You have to give up on a lot of things you need for non-trivial programs. Such systems are not new, but their time might finally have come, taking the current trend of dumbing down everything to the point even the most lazy doofus can claim to be a "programmer". Cf. "web programmers" and Arduino "programmers.

author: Kremmen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2012, 06:17:11 am
content: I can't believe that the majority of those dabbling in application development using (only) Arduino would consider themselves "programmers". Certainly no professional would. The general level of skill demonstrated is pretty nonexistent.Such users could benefit from visual flowchart "programming" but for "real" programs, naah. I dabbled wit C++ code generation already in the 90s and then it became obvious there is such a vast sea of problems and design patterns and whatnot, that automatic code generation quickly becomes totally lost. AI research has progressed, sure, but there is still no alternative in sight for human understanding.The expressive power of flowcharts is so low that SW pros have dismissed them a long time ago. Now if someone comes up with a working generator to process UML notation into real source code tha would be something. There have been attempts but so far those have been less than convincing.P.S. Just for your amusement and to show that a lowly Arduino can be moderately useful, attached is an application for Arduino Uno, written in true C++, with dynamic class creation and deletion. It is the control program for a camera dolly for time lapse photography with controlled x/y movements. Unfortunately i wrote it for domestic hobbyists so all comments are in Finnish, but then SW pros don't need comments because the source is self commenting, right.This is easily achievable using an Arduino, but just try that with some kind of flowchart presentation

author: McMonster
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2012, 06:30:07 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 14, 2012, 02:24:03 amYes, I handle software and hardware orders for computer and PLC laboratories at work and quoted prices threw me off my chair a few times, but as a programmer myself I really understand that writing a complicated piece of software that does it job well is a daunting task sometimes.But I've seen some hobby PLC projects that used graphical programming with ladder logic and FBD that compiled down to AVR assembly.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2012, 08:51:47 am
content: Graphical programming like this is usually a dead end - fine for simple noddy applications but just doesn't have the power, flexibility or expressiveness for most real-world applications. Stuff like interrupts & handling realtime events is not easy to express in a flowchart type environment. By the time you make the environment complex enough to cope with the majority of applications, the learning time is no less than a real language, so you're wasting your time learning your way into a non-transferrable dead-end when you could be learning a proper language and programming techniques.In terms of developing real apps, you're also at the mercy of any bugs in their software - imagine needing to have something working tomorrow and their software suddenly decides to fall over. At least with a conventional compiler you can generally work round problems like this, and look at the code it generates with a fairly close correspondence between the source and object.ISTR a while ago attending a seminar by ST where they were pushing some similar graphic based system (?ST-realiser or similar?) , and it was clear to everyone there it was a dead end, When asked how many real product had been developed with it, they could only come up with one.It's the same with FPGA software - schematic entry looks attractive on the surface, but apart from reimplementing existing designs it quickly becomes more complex and messy than using HDL as soon as you get any useful complexity.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2012, 10:50:30 am
content: i teached student programming lego nxt robot in graphical mode because its the rule in the contest. well, i was in deep suffering! for simpler stuff, this thing can do, but when the code gets complex, even sketching the flowchart with hand is almost impossible.

author: tinhead
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2012, 10:52:23 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 14, 2012, 05:13:29 ambecause they see primary a dev board - they don't know that FlowCode itself works with any DIY board and pickit 2/3.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2012, 11:46:09 am
content: Here's an analogy - symbols and diagrams are OK for simple instructions - warning signs, furniture assembly instructions etc., but for expressing anything more complex, language works a lot better.

author: FreeThinker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2012, 03:37:54 pm
content: I've Tried Flowcode code today and it's very nice, as stated above it has it's limitations but is very simple to use, has a built in simulator and interfaces to your PICKIT 2/3 (I only tried the PIC version ) so is great for quick and dirty circuit testing. Home version costs £50 Pro £200 not sure of the differences may just be the no of users, but all in all it seems quite nice. You could design your code run it then burn it to hardware (via your pickit) and never see a line of code.

author: casinada
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 12:36:22 am
content: National Instruments LabView is not a toy. It took them a while but now are a standard for graphical programing of instrumentation and control systems.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 12:43:10 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on May 14, 2012, 11:46:09 amAt the moment i agree. but i think sooner or later someone will invent an entirely new way to express logic graphically and at that point things will change.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 01:35:49 am
content: Quote from: Psi on May 15, 2012, 12:43:10 amIn the Star Trek universe they control and program computers by tapping a few different abstract symbols on a keypad.Now either people will become more intelligent in the future (unlikely), or this holy grail will be within the scope of today's mind. Given the lack of progress to date, I sincerely doubt that the future envisioned by Star Trek will come to pass.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 02:44:39 am
content: Quote from: IanB on May 15, 2012, 01:35:49 amI don't think it's a question of people "becoming" more intelligent. It's a matter of teaching currently unknown concepts at an early age so we can develop abilities that we don't know we have.The whole skill set of computer programming was unknown until computers were invented and the need for it arose.I think most programmers would agree that if computer programming was taught as a major subject (like English or Maths) from a primary school level and up that... by the time they left high school the majority of people would be able to do semi-complex computer programming without any trouble at all. (not everyone would enjoy it, but that's a separate issue)It's not that programming is hard, it's more that people 'think' it's hard.We limit ourselves a lot by thinking "I'm not intelligent enough for X"

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 04:18:20 am
content: Quote from: Psi on May 15, 2012, 12:43:10 amlogic as in fpga or combinatorial logic is ok. but in software engineering, it can become 'illogical'Quote from: IanB on May 15, 2012, 01:35:49 amprobably predefined standard construct, and probably higher level standardized functions, such as search, sort, compress function etc. but then there's IDE meant for kidz, there's for 'professional' users, and then there's for professional (core) programmer. think of Windows/Mac/Linux, we are unknowingly becoming 'professional users' using predefined construct (buttons, menu, file system etc) we are at the mercy of the 'OS/kernel core programmer' simplifying things for us. even though we program C++ or basic in it, but still... we are the OS users, not OS programmers.Quote from: casinada on May 15, 2012, 12:36:22 amthey are meant/excel to control instrumentation yes. but when it comes to controlling with some level of intelligence, then... that blocky blocky things are just toyz. been there i know. so i guess it depends on what you want to do. just to control ON/OFF an device, go for Lab/NI-View 'blocky thing', kiddy stuff? FlowCode (no offense, only from my experience, no hard proof). core stuff? go verbose, go textual and ready to invent 'new creative illogical semantics'. (but not for ascii drawing P)

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 07:17:59 am
content: Quote from: Psi on May 15, 2012, 02:44:39 amI have to disagree here. Take Math as an example. Taught as major subject, but still most people suck at simple math after they finished school. Devising a computer program, as opposite to just the act of typing (or drawing icons), also requires talent.One of the reasons there is so many bad software out there is lack of talent and people believing everyone can become a programmer by just studying. And many, not the least hardware specialists, even think the studying part is optional when becoming a programmer. Graphical programming environments cater exactly for these type of people. Similar to the Arduino Sketch junk this stuff targets the lazy ones with a lack of talent.You have this in all areas of life. There are always those promising you to becomes something even if you lack the talent "you can become an XYZ, too.". Whole industries rips off talentless wannabe book authors, wannabe painters, wannabe DIYlers (aka "makers"), wannabe bands and musicians. Nothing new here.Quote from: IanB on May 15, 2012, 01:35:49 amStar Trek controls explode whenever there is an unusual condition. I don't want to have that junk in front of me. Give it to the Arduino crowd please. Let them burn their fingers.Quote from: casinada on May 15, 2012, 12:36:22 amIt is a monster that works in a very limited area. And it rapidly breaks down when you step outside of the threaded pathes. E.g. in terms of speed.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 08:29:56 am
content: Quote from: BoredAtWork on May 15, 2012, 07:17:59 amTrue, but math isn't something that really goes anywhere. You can see you need some math but beyond add/sub/mul/div students find it hard to care much about it. It's needed for problems but it really doesn't do anything (except maybe PHD level math on cutting edge science).Programming allows people to produce things which make their lives easier.So many times i see people in data-entry like jobs doing repetitive keyboard takes when they could write a simple program to do it with only a small amount of programming knowledge. My point is it's immediately obvious why programming is useful.I also heard a month or so back, not sure if it's true, but apparently computer geeks at school are starting to become popular due to being able to write phone apps.It may, slowly, be changing to "cool" to be able to program or at least not as un-cool.And motivational and enjoyment really are the keys to learning new things.

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 09:43:39 am
content: Quote from: Psi on May 15, 2012, 08:29:56 amSure? People are ripped off daily because they fail at simple math. Take advertising like "now 10% bigger". People assume they get 10% more in weight, while it could mean the manufacturer managed to increase the volume by blowing in more air. Or people who end up in deep debt, because they can't figure out what they signed.I recently met a nurse. She gave the usual spiel of "oh, I suck at math" when I mentioned that I now had 60% of my five required doctor appointments done. Blank stare ... Oh great, I like it when medicine is mixed the wrong way, because a nurse can't do simple math.But we can take another subject, languages. Except if you are an American, who don't believe in a second or third language, languages are a useful thing. But still many people suck at it after years of foreign language education at school.QuoteOh, it keeps your wallet thick and helps you don't get killed by a blond nurse.QuoteAnd math helps to keep people alive.QuoteMost of them can not, because they lack the talent for programming. And there is a surprising thing. People, especially GUI users, want it that way. It gives them a sense of achievement when they click themselves silly.

author: steve_w
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 09:58:13 am
content: From another perspective if you are doing something safety related the output of the software needs to be deterministic. With a lot of code generating software the code is generally unacceptable for safety applications because it is unverifyable.I have seen labview solutions rejected several times due to the inability to understand what is going on inside the software. So a code generator is good in a learning environment but probably won't be accepted in a serious application. So i'd say bored at work has it pretty well spot on, do the maths and understand what you are doing, it will make life easy in the end.regardsSW

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 02:08:26 pm
content: Quote from: Psi on May 15, 2012, 08:29:56 amWow, that really fails to understand what mathematics is all about. Such a view is probably an outcome of the failed teaching of mathematics in schools.Mathematics is about conceptual and logical thinking, about seeing patterns and connections in things, about using this to build up from simpler ideas to more complex ideas while keeping things straight in your mind. Mathematics is not merely about sums and algebra and solving problems, although such basic mental calisthenics are a natural part of a learning program.It's really sad the the teaching of mathematics in schools is so often reduced to the routine teaching of simple rules and procedures. It does a great disservice to the children exposed to it by taking a wonderfully creative subject and reducing it to tedious boredom.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 02:33:58 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on May 15, 2012, 02:08:26 pmI was describing it from the point of view of the student.Doing school math for no other reason than getting an answer doesn't lead to anything. Doing programming leads to an output, something semi-tangible that you can see a use for.It was a comment on BoredAtWork's statement that "most people suck at simple math after they finished school"They suck because doing math for no reason other than doing math has no value to them. For young people to see value in something it needs to have an output other than the learning itself.And as you say. it should be about teaching conceptual and logical thinking.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 03:11:27 pm
content: Quote from: Kremmen on May 14, 2012, 06:17:11 amReal programmers write hex straight into mask-rom. all this namby pamby stuff with high level languages , compilers , flash , retry , breakpoints debuggers is for beginners. Real programmers know the whole instruction set in its hexadecimal form ( opcodes are for 'intermediate programmers' ) and write flawless, elegant code that you can directly put into mask rom. It will work first time right. Anybody that does it different is a 'wanna-be' (that includes myself ).@steve_w : I sometimes write 'critical' code and there is a whole bunch of rules.. no dynamic memory allocation, no function pointers . We can use 'C' but a whole bunch of constructs are 'illegal'. We have a pre-processor (a kind of linter) that goes over the code and blocks compilation if we do anything deemed 'potentially unsafe'. code is profiled the snot out of it. every pathway is walked to make sure the code can complete its task, barring severe hardware problems, in the alotted amount of time.I don't know about flowcode and i'm not going to comment on it but , from what i have seen : it looks like a graphical wrapper around standard 'c'.In essence you drop down a block , define in and out parameters , doubleclick it and fill in the code. This i kind of like. In a modern day and age it is stupid that you have to define a function prototype in the .h file , then type exaclty the same thing again in another file. If you need to modify the parameters , you need to go back in the .h and tweak the prototype .. there has to be an easier way. These are the boring ridiculous 'typing jobs' that can easily be replaced by a smart IDE. i think that is what flowcode attempts to do. Take the tedious, boring, time consuming , error prone , easily overlooked things away so you can focus on writing the functional part of the code.Why do we even need things like forward declaration anymore ? just make the compiler multipass. first pass collects all the functions and compiles them. whenever there is a call to an , as yet unknown , function : leave a marker behind. once the first pass is done you now have a map. go back and replace the markers with the final function address... this is a 'mechanical' job that can perfectly be done by a compiler.

author: FreeThinker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 04:25:31 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on May 15, 2012, 03:11:27 pmAfter playing with it for a day or so I can confirm that it is indeed simply a wrapper around a c complier. You can add code and (I think) even alter the predefines macros so you can drill down quite deep to the core. You can down load a crippleware version from the website to play with.

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 05:47:10 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on May 15, 2012, 03:11:27 pmBullshit. Real programmers write binary directly into mask ROMs by bending the path of the photons in the photolitographic phase of ROM creation with bare hands. Non of that modern hex stuff. Bah.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 05:57:06 pm
content: Quote from: Kremmen on May 14, 2012, 06:17:11 amSW pros do need comments, alot of it. code monkeys dont.Quote from: free_electron on May 15, 2012, 03:11:27 pmwith your postulate, i believe everybody is wannabe including the "Real programmers write hex straight into mask-rom". the only one i know that doesnt make mistake and "work first time right" is God. pls name "human" if you know any. i'm positive it wont be "Bill" or "Steve"

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 06:15:51 pm
content: Quote from: BoredAtWork on May 15, 2012, 05:47:10 pmYou write the bits in by plugging a fusible link prom into a breadboard, connecting a power supply and blow bits using wire links to set up the address and data then briefly powering the prom to blow the fuses. Followed by reading with a voltmeter after setting the power supply back down to 5V from the programming voltage of 6V. Other option was wiring a core memory with sense wiring to make a read only core.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 06:32:05 pm
content: real programmers only need a punch and hardpaper card, no electrons and nics and inductism is involved.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 07:13:30 pm
content: Quote from: Mechatrommer on May 15, 2012, 05:57:06 pmWell, without claiming any titles --any titles at all-- I have recently done that!Specifically, I patched theDS1000EUpdate.RGLv2.06 (the Rigol firmware update binary file), replacing a code chunk with a custom one, inspired byKrater's Homebrewwork on the firmware v2.05.What I did, was to:1. Spot the chunk of code to be replaced in the disassembly listing of the image loaded into the SDRAM system space,2. Write in assembly the piece of code I needed to replace the original one with,3. Convert the instructions to op-codes,4. Manually calculate the source and the target function and buffer offsets,5. Write down the corrected op-codes, without invoking any Blackfin assemblers or linkers,6. Calculate the offsets of the new chunk of code within the executable image file (the "DS1000EUpdate.RGL") and replace the original code chunk,7. Confirm in disassembler that the new image works as expected,8. Load the new firmware and, finally,9. Successfully test it!How much time did all this take for me to do it? Almost two working days (a day and a half, actually)!Why I did I choose that path? Because of the minimal time it required from me to do it, by only using the Blackfin documentation (the ADSP Instruction Set, the Hardware and the Programming references and the Boot-ROM Engineer Note), without having to get myself to learn the Analog Devices VisualDSP platform.So, yes, there certainly are many ways for a job to be done!-George

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 07:59:24 pm
content: thats called hacking, not programming. and worst, copycatting with luckor are you claiming you are better than rigol programmer who built the "buggy FW" from scratch?

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 08:13:42 pm
content: You can call it anyway you like; I've already stated that I do not claim any titles for that!What I claim is that the modification described above was built from scratch, it was applied directly to the op-code level with the aid of a calculator (without using any fancy GUIs or any other programming band-aids), it was really fast to be done, and it worked right from the first time.Oh! And that I am human!-George

author: Kremmen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 09:55:09 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on May 15, 2012, 03:11:27 pmBeen there, done it. Used to be i knew the 8085 opcodes in hex almost all by heart. Needed them too as the only ISIS-2 development systems were expensive, big and definitely did not leave the office. All field fixes were done directly to 27xxx UVEEPROMS using a manual programmer. I don't miss those days.Quote from: Mechatrommer on May 15, 2012, 05:57:06 pmThat was sarcasm. I know for the amerikans the word "irony" means something with lots of iron in it. You come from elsewhere so you should do better. As a rule, I have my code monkeys read "Code Complete", in my opinion one of the best books about practical level code construction. After they assimilate the book, they are not monkeys any more. They also know how to annotate the code in a meaningful way.While on the topic of Real Programmers: The Story of Melhttp://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/mel.html.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 10:10:23 pm
content: yay ! an isis-2 ! the blue one or the more advanced white one with built in terminal ?i had one of those with the S100 blade with one of those rainbow flatcables ( twisted pair version ) and a real ICE-51 box at the other end.Later we also had those for the i960 ... now THAT was a processor... when everybody was still mumbling about 'risc is the future' that thing already ate anything our there...Isis.. and iRMX .. those were the days. Compiling PL/M code. iRMX is one of the most bulletproof operating systems out there.Best 'error trap' i have ever seen on an iRMX system:'Beep' .... in the console status line appears a little text : Parity error in RAM ,Pages 800 to 816 ( or something along those lines ). Contents redirected. Autocontine.that was it. just a little message that part of the computers live RAM had died , it had relocated these pages , reloaded the data and went on about its business.The bloody damn thing just continued running as if nothing had happened ! it just had one of its ram chips on the motherboard fail.. completely ( the ram chip was dead ) the iRMX kernel detected this , located what was stored there , retrieved it from disk , allocated memory somewhere else for this , changed the runtime on the fly to use the updated addresses and marked these ram blocks int he memory manager as 'bad' so it would not go there. The whole machine kept on running for weeks without a single failure... then it was time for a scheduled maintenance. we took it down . located the bad memory ( They used 42256 chips. This was an old 80386 pc board from Radisys). we pulled the chips out of the sockets , put some new ones in , booted in manager mode , ran the memory test to verify the ram was now good and iRMX reenabled those pages... and happily thrundled off doing its business..Any operating system that can pull something like that off is a real operating system. Here you have this catastrophical hardware failure and it just relocates code , puts a little message on the console , marks the offending hardware as 'do not use' and keeps on running ...I'd like to see you pull a stunt like that on anything else ...

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 10:35:03 pm
content: ?? what ego battle ? i was talking about iRMX and the isis systems.Has nothing to do with what i did .. i couldn't begin to make such a thing ...There's plenty of people that have done waaaaay more interesting things in life than the little bit of dabbling i have done ... Like Gary Kildall when he made the PL/M language and wrote CP/M....

author: steve_w
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 11:03:10 pm
content: Free_electronThe point I was making was that code generators dont allow the inspection that you describes, you dont know how the code is implemented. If you write it yourself, then it can be peer reviewed and walkthroughed and checked for conformance to standards. If you have a flow chart and an executable and a code generator what do you inspect?regardsSW

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 11:15:10 pm
content: Quote from: FreeThinker on May 15, 2012, 04:25:31 pmI've been told by a user that this is indeed the case. You can use inline C any time you want.Dave.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2012, 11:54:30 pm
content: Quote from: iamwhoiam on May 15, 2012, 10:16:06 pmWell, in the case of that "ego-battle" statement being an aftereffect of my messages, I just stated that no fancy software would be really needed if someone really knew what they were doing.Now, my previous message was a tease to our co-EEVBlogger who asked if there was any known human being to be programming straight in hex, since he wrote that "only God acts without making any mistakes." I also stressed that I did not claim any titles for what I did, nor am I theTetragrammaton(= YHWH: "he who is") because I amunreligious(meaning that I am indifferent to religions and I do not recognise any religious dogmas as authorities in my life, as we had alreadydiscussed thatin the past).-George

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2012, 12:09:48 am
content: Quote from: steve_w on May 15, 2012, 11:03:10 pmas i understand it this is only a wrapper around a bunch of c libraries and your code ( which is also c). if they provided the source to the libraries ... you are set.

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2012, 12:28:28 am
content: I am not one for Nationalistic flame wars but I LOL when I read.QuoteQuoteGreat book. Handed to me when I was turned into a code monkey, that and the directive that I had to learn to touch type, so I could type out all those long method names.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2012, 01:36:39 am
content: Quotei believe we've been talking different terminology here. where for me, programming is... 'at some level of intelligence' code execution/creation. not 1+1=yadawhatever it is. edit and by 'at some level of intelligence' i mean something that cannot be done in 2-3 days time, no matter how correctly and hardly you do it. YMMV.Quoteits by design! whether you want to accept it or not, your choicethats the way how it works, god's choice.btw a food for thought. if you see one ant raping or killing the other ant what will you do? flat it on the floor with your thumb? excessively off-topic

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2012, 02:05:46 am
content: btw. the hardest part that recently came across in my life is 'programming silicons and electrons' the way we want them to be. i never faced such difficulty in software domain.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2012, 03:33:01 am
content: i tried reply #57, but as usual its unstopable. so.... just following the 'flow' or the 'code'and i didnt take any offense, i'm... 'neutral'and its not night around here, infact 30 minutes to noon

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2012, 03:38:25 am
content: maybe later. i've no intention going SW right now. i'm stucked at the analogmay give it a try next time. thanks for sharing the info, it maybe the "future"!

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2012, 03:54:44 am
content: Quoteas i get older i prefer the easier. i partly understand why people prefer the premade chip instead of discrete transistors. maybe this is one time only i delve so deep into the analog for an exercise. after this maybe i'll just get back to arduino and code somthing fun. enjoy life right? before we embrace 'nonexistency'