How to learn assembely?

[mvs_sarma]

Hi Amindzo,

try http://www.mikroe.com/en/books/picbook/0_Uvod.htm

and you can progressively read-on line and use it. Hope you will love it.

[amindzo]

Hi mvs_sarma,
thank you very much.it is very useful!

[lerameur]

Hi,

Is there a tutorial (in pdf) from Microchip available?

ken

[skimask]

Hi,

Is there a tutorial (in pdf) from Microchip available?

ken

I'm sure there's a lot of tutorial's around the internet on assembly, just nothing specific to a PIC, and I haven't seen anything lately. There's a few books out there that do assembly fairly well (myke predko springs to mind).
Once you get into the assembly part of the PIC, you'd be surprised at how close PBP really is to assembly, different names for commands (and a few more variations thereof), but you get the same end results.

[mister_e]

Ken, you can also download the French tutorial from Bigonoff. Outdated, but nice to begin.

Many good old assembler tutorial books from Microchip (can't tell if there's still available), also any of Square 1 are nice (PIC'n up the Pace, Easy PIC'n etc etc)

[lerameur]

well I have been told that picbasic is a lot slower and have more overhead (memory space) then assembly for sure, but also C. Would C be better to learn if performance is a goal.

k

[skimask]

well I have been told that picbasic is a lot slower and have more overhead (memory space) then assembly for sure, but also C. Would C be better to learn if performance is a goal.

k

Look at a PBP's compiled/assembled program, then take a look at that same PBP source code. You'll see that they are very similar in size and function.
I have found that there is very little overhead when dealing with PBP and as far as speed goes, that goes with overhead. If your functions in PBP are complex, then so will the final assembly code. That goes for any language. Even if you're programming in straight assembly. If you've got something complicated to do, then it's going to take complicated steps to get complicated work done.

Now then, if this person that told you that PBP was slower and bloated with overhead, but this person was actually talking about the BasicStamp (and it's happened many times before), then yes, the BasicStamp is a lot slower, because it is an interpreted language, and does have a lot of memory and CPU cycle overhead because it is interpreted on the fly. PBP is pre-compiled before being burned into the chip.

It's a lot like learning how to do something the first time.
Either you can read a book and memorize each step ahead of time so you can do the task without stopping (PBP)......or you can put the book 20ft away from you on the other side of the room and refer to it for each step of the task (BasicStamp).

And as far as learning C goes....to each their own. I don't see (C ) any advantage in using C with the PICs, maybe the larger dsPICs and maybe the 24F series, but not in the 10F/12F/16F/18F range. A program written for PBP and a similar functioning program written in C will most likely compile down to the same functionality, speed, code size (all other things being equal), and probably the exact same code itself.