Re: Newbee question

[john@nospam.demon.co.uk (John McCabe)]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 21:36:59 -0500, "Eric Robert"
<synapzzz@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Well... Not that long ago: On some new PIC18FXX microprocessors with about
>10 time less memory. You say: within 8us... sounds impressive... Wow! I'm
>impressed! -- It depends on what you have to do and it depends on your clock
>speed! 8us is really bad on some microprocessors. So, state your CPU and its
>clock to get me the impression that 8us is impressive. But please... don't
>try to impress newbees like me ;-)

I'll copy the bit out from the message you're replying to:

>> In fact it is very good where CPU & resources are critical. When was
>> the last time you built a system in C++ based on a Mil-Std-1750A
>> processor (1.3MIPS) using 48kBytes of RAM and requiring an action to
>> be performed in response to an interrupt within 8us?

I guess the clock speed isn't stated there - to get 1.3MIPS you needed
to run the GPS MA31750 at 10MHz but, being a space app, we weren't
allowed to, so we had to run it at 9MHz.

>I guess my point is Ada is 'restrictive' (NOT more readable -- Why is that?)
>and that it can be of some help for big team of people that don't
>communicate with each others. But when your CPU have less than 100K of RAM
>and you're on a 'big' team: well... I guess the debate over Ada is
>useless... How many of you guys are needed to program a chip with less than
>100K of RAM? Hope that this doesn't fall in the 'big team' argument.

Quite a few probably. I certainly have on a few occasions. I wouldn't
say that the teams were that big, only 4 or 5.


Best Regards
John McCabe

To reply by email replace 'nospam' with 'assen'