| ??? 02/01/07 00:39 Read: times |
#131853 - Now you've proven my point, Erik Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik Malund said:
I said "Of course, if you see fit to make personal attacks in that post I may change my mind."
I thought so I don't see how you could have expected anything else. Your last post was a troll for personal criticism, which, at least to the extent that it applies to your behavior in this forum, which is all I know of you, I'm happy to provide. It wouldn't occur to me to criticize anything further. You always ignore their complaints that they can't get the parts you think they should use, and, since they are asking about how to do what they want to do with the parts that they want to use, they're not interested in your favorite bleeding-edge technology. a) I do not "ignore their complaints" and I do not use "bleeding-edge technology". I do, however have one heck of a problem when you post "here is how" without even mentioning that the method is outdated. So, you can se my "you are using an antique" as a response balancing your "help" to make it clear that Richard does not describe current technology in his "helpful" post. I generally don't tell 'em what to use. I try to tell 'em how to do what they want, with what they want to use. I make no assumptions about why they want to do what they say what they want to do. It's reasonable to tell them that there are more modern (keep in mind that modern often means fashionable and not necessarily better) ways of doing things, but not until you've answered their question. If you don't want to tell them how to do what they want to do, then you should have the decency to remain "silent." It's not helpful to tell them they are trying to do something that's wrong in itself, e.g. interface an LCD via the 8255 on their old-technogy 805x board.
It is DEFINITELY "not helpful to tell them" that what they are 'learning' is of any use in todays world. *There have been several posts from graduates of such courses that indicated that they thought such old technology was state of the art and thus to be used in the new products they were 'designing'. I've seen some of those posts, and, judging from what they say and how they say it, their problem is not with the course, but with their level of engagement. If it works, it is of use. If it can't be made to work because the components are unavailable in the required timeframe, it's of little use. If it requires a student, often in financial stress, that he has to make a new PCB or buy your favorite PCB, it's of little use. Learning how to do things with old technology is not harmful. Any fool knows that technology will become obsolete. If it's a first-year course, it's nearly certain that there may be "better" or faster or cheaper or less difficult ways of doing things in a year. Anyone who thinks that what he learned a year ago is automatically and universally applicable, now and forever, to all problems he'll encounter, is less than a fool, and will surely get what he deserves. They often have a DIP-40 or PLCC-44 MCU on board, so recommending they change to an SMT part doesn't help them. They often don't have the resources to replace half of what is already on hand. Nevertheless, YOU insist on telling them what they probably already know, namely that there may be other ways of doing what they're supposed to do. Listening to your rants won't get their work done by Tuesday next, though. No, that may be so, but, at least, they will be aware of what they are doing. Also, I often recommend the P89C668 and the LPC series which all are available in socketable versions. also what they probably already know has been shown in posts like described above (at *) I don't see how telling them something useless will help them. If they wanted to go to school under YOU then YOU'd be the one getting paid to teach them. You won't discuss the technical issues TOTAL ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT!!!! just look at my posts in a thread like http://www.8052.com/forum/read.phtml?id=131719. Yes, you are right, I do not "help doing it wrong". If someone want to make a '51 run non-permanent code I post "wrong processor", if someone want to make a USB master, I post "chips available, but not as a '51". No, I do not "help" if I see such "help" as not being helpful. If someone post I need it tomorrow and the solution is to buy a chip, is it my problem that he sat on his behind for months before realizing what was needed? Your attitude is "if he wants to hang himself I will help him find the rope". You'll pontificate, as in the example you cite, but you won't discuss, particularly when your argument is falling apart. When you say "wrong," you're usually wrong. For example, I have in the past run code from SRAM lots of times. You'd say that's wrong. I occasionally need to read from slow non-volatile memory into fast-enough (~10-15ns) SRAM after switching the MCU speed, and I don't mean by cycle-stretching, since cycle-stretching is NOT speed switching, as it affects only the cycle length of the impacted resource accesses, leaving other features in the MCU to operate at their normal speed. Yes, because sitting on his "rusty-dusty" and making decisions at the last minute will cause him grief, and no amount of "buying something else" will teach him that as well as letting him hang himself. I will, indeed, help him "find the rope," if that's what he asks me to do. However, if a student asks how to do something with his 8031 board, something he has to have done by Thursday's lab session, it wouldn't be wrong to give him a pointer or two. It WOULD be wrong to hand him the code and say, "Here's how to do it." If your rant above is "discussing technical issues", them the moon is made of green cheese.
This should just about balance your post above so NOW, what about answering the technical point I have raised re periodic cycle stretching (speed change) and the potential problems caused by the variance in interrupt latency it generates. Is the rant above because you can not respond to technical issues? If you could, without hiding behind "give me examples", then this thread would have been over long ago. What about it? If the code is written sensibly, it will never be a problem, no matter how or when it occurs. You, however, insist that it will, for some reason, and for some even more unfathomable reason, presented, as support for your argument, an example in which it quite obviously won't be a problem if it's implemented sensibly. My point in the my last post was that you seem always to move from the specific to the general when one asks for the specific and to the specific when one asks for the general. That's probably because you know you've painted yourself into a corner and can't support your argument. You must understand that, since you often have accused me of mixing "apples and oranges." Apparently you believe that's O.K. for you when you're cornered. Erik
|
