| ??? 03/13/06 08:23 Read: times |
#112038 - What would be the point? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Ralph Sack said:
I was shocked that the airospace engineer could not write source code for 8051 after all he was airospace engineer. I'm not sure how being an aerospace engineer should inherently equip him to write 8051 assembler?! Probably what he meant was the he didn't know the 8051 architecture, didn't know 8051 assembler, didn't have 8051 tools, etc, etc,... Now, if there were some compelling reason to change to an 8051, it shouldn't be hard for any competent embedded engineer to get all that stuff. But, with no compelling reason, what's the point? If you agreed to pay him a commercial rate to do the translation & redesign, maybe he'd have agreed? But, once you'd worked out what the commercial rate would be, you'd probably realise why it's not worth it! I said how come you can't write the code for 8051? Why should I learn new code when I don't use it all a time. This is why engineers stay with Mc68hc over the 8051. Doesn't exactly the same argument apply both ways? Why do you insist on having it on an 8051? Why don't you learn 68HC? |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| MC68hc705c8s or 8051 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I've worked with both... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| people dont change | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Been Tried | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Used both, different view | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| What would be the point? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Master of one. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| How about 89c2051 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Stream of consciousness... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Fuzzy | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| It's just another component | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| what do you mean about "learning" | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Normal?! | 01/01/70 00:00 |