by Joseph Watson » Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:08 am
I don't think everyone is using PIC chips in a professional capacity. I only use PIC chips for experimenting and for fun.
After more than 42 years as a professional software engineer, I retired. Now my professional days are in the past. For more than 30 years, most of my programming experience related to the real-time control of large multi-axis servo-driven machines as well as the collecting and analysis of data gathered by those machines. The processors ranged from early minicomputers to mid-sized machines, a variety of personal computers, and early microprocessors (8080, 6502, 680X, 80X86, etc.). I have used many assemblers, compilers, debuggers, version control systems, more high-level languages than I can remember (but not C, I don't like C), and perhaps a dozen different assembly languages over the years. I created two specialized high-level languages myself to allow people who were not really computer programmers to create programs to control the automated machines.
I left that job in 2000 and then worked for a decade on election systems for most of the county boards of elections in Ohio. I am only mentioning all this to demonstrate that I am no stranger to software development and especially in a professional setting.
Nevertheless, I still very much enjoyed programming computers in the early days when things were quite simple. There were no in-circuit debuggers. There were no version control systems. The computers were not large enough do much of anything at all using a compiled language so nearly everything was written in assembler. I personally do not need all of that professional-level setup to keep myself happy. I am sure there are many others, and especially those who program PIC chips for a living, that make great use of all that. I find that messing around in a small scale way with these things is great therapy. It keeps my mind busy while many others my age are lapsing into dementia.
It is my belief that a PIC forum like this one should encourage the expression and exploration of the ideas and needs of a wide variety of users from beginners to professionals (and even the old coots like me).
I play with a minimal budget. I don't think I made a claim that the BOLT was the best development board for anybody's particular purpose. It should be clear by looking at my BOLT web page that I was not totally satisfied with it just the way it comes as I have documented multiple changes that I have made to it. There are more that I have since made and just not added to the page yet. Still, I don't think we should just totally dismiss it as a pointless system. Just as you see weaknesses in the BOLT's design, so do I but I learned long ago to get along well with much less than the BOLT.
No doubt some see the BOLT in only the way it is presented. They see an interface for a 16-button keypad, a port for a 1-line character LCD display, 8 LEDs, a relay, a temperature sensor, a serial port, and a USB port, and a facility for powering it from an external supply. And let us not forget the 4 DIP switch pack. But that is not what I see. I played with all that. Now I do other things with the BOLT. I find the 8 LEDs useful and, on occasion, I have found many of the other supplied interfaces useful. I connect lots of things via the port intended for the LCD display as well as via the small auxiliary port. For example, I have had the BOLT generating composite video while running an external 32K RAM chip (parallel, not serial). Obviously, that took some degree of seeing the BOLT as something other than its collection of built-in interfaces.
My first hobbyist experiences with the PIC chips began in 1997. I have built and used PIC ICSP programmers in the past that used a parallel printer port to drive them (several different kinds actually) and at least one serially driven version. I have a commercial USB-based PIC programmer which can accept a PIC chip directly or program one via ICSP.
I like things simple and cheap. It reduces the complication factor. I acquired my two BOLT Lite boards for about $6 and $8 and my full BOLT board for about $19. It seemed like a good deal to me and I have not yet been unhappy with my investment. For me, there is no concern of the slight extra cost related to buying PIC chips with the bootloader already in them because so far, I have purchased only two such extra chips and I don't plan to buy more at the moment.
Some of the previous comments here remind me of a pervasive question that repeatedly arose at a couple of computer clubs that I helped charter in the mid-1970s. Over and over, we heard this same question, "Which microprocessor chip is the best one?" Of course, not everybody's needs are alike. The resulting answer usually sounded something like, "It depends on what you want it to do and even then it is often difficult to say." In many ways, these things are decided as a matter of taste.
I am seriously not about to fault anyone who uses the fancier development systems. Obviously, they exist in order to fill a need and there are many who can afford to spend the money for them and live in the busy world of professional style PIC development where time is money. No doubt many hobbyists choose that style of development as well, especially those who are preparing themselves to move into professional work. But not everyone falls into those categories. I would hope this PIC forum does not discourage those who see PIC chips as a way to simply have a good time rather than as a way to make a living or to develop a professional skill. I simply contend that the BOLT board is capable of serving the needs of some people. It is always up to all of us to choose how we want to go about things. Just like in the 1970s, "Which PIC development board is the best one?". Not everybody's needs are alike. "It depends on what you want it to do and even then it is often difficult to say."
NCR once refused to hire me because I was too short. I'm still waiting on my growth spurt.