The Complete Idiots Guide to Brain Surgery

This is a discussion on The Complete Idiots Guide to Brain Surgery within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; >> Which TC+DOS make very easy. Please tell me how that would work? I wrote code for microcontrollers with a ...

  1. #16
    The superhaterodyne twomers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    2,262
    >> Which TC+DOS make very easy.
    Please tell me how that would work? I wrote code for microcontrollers with a mix between MSVC and the microchip's software. I don't see the point in using command line compilers when it's so much easier to press a button to compile and build.

  2. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    India
    Posts
    515
    This is solely due to the reason that the students are Electrical/Mechanical major, and they need to write code for micro controllers etc.
    Writing something for micro-controllers has nothing to do with TC. Turbo C is a so called C compiler, nothing more.

    So simple to kindle with serial/parallel ports.
    And also so buggy. If you really want to kindle with ports, use ASM. You need a simple assembler. The functions provided by TC namely outport, inport are nothing but non standard implementations over a platform which is no longer supported natively by the operating systems. Again, it has nothing to do with the C compiler that we are talking about. You can access ports with the same amount of simplicity on linux using gcc.

    And where it really matters the students doing Computer Science major, they use MSVC.
    That depends on what college you are in. We are provided with 'advanced' compilers only in our final year of graduation and I am assuming it was the same with you. If not, you were lucky
    Code:
    >+++++++++[<++++++++>-]<.>+++++++[<++++>-]<+.+++++++..+++.[-]>++++++++[<++++>-] <.>+++++++++++[<++++++++>-]<-.--------.+++.------.--------.[-]>++++++++[<++++>- ]<+.[-]++++++++++.

  3. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by twomers View Post
    >> Which TC+DOS make very easy.
    Please tell me how that would work? I wrote code for microcontrollers with a mix between MSVC and the microchip's software. I don't see the point in using command line compilers when it's so much easier to press a button to compile and build.
    You wanna test a simple LED based electric circuit. Ok. Attach it to parallel port. Run in DOS. Use the simplicity of a DOS based compiler. And be done with it. All such type of simple electronics projects, cheaper also.

    Quote Originally Posted by PING View Post
    Writing something for micro-controllers has nothing to do with TC. Turbo C is a so called C compiler, nothing more.
    The benefit is it runs under DOS. A bare bones OS. Very useful for your own kindling with hardware and all that. Especially with simple projects interfacing with PC.


    And also so buggy. If you really want to kindle with ports, use ASM. You need a simple assembler. The functions provided by TC namely outport, inport are nothing but non standard implementations over a platform which is no longer supported natively by the operating systems. Again, it has nothing to do with the C compiler that we are talking about. You can access ports with the same amount of simplicity on linux using gcc.
    Assembly is harder to use. Plus all the stuff can be done using some functions in TC
    that directly change registers, make int requests, write to ports and to memory also. Plus you can very easily draw a nice interface using graphics lib available from TC.

    That depends on what college you are in. We are provided with 'advanced' compilers only in our final year of graduation and I am assuming it was the same with you. If not, you were lucky
    Ist year - C/C++
    IInd year - VB, Java, Perl
    IIIrd year - Net working, DB and such stuff

  4. #19
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,510
    Quote Originally Posted by manav View Post
    The benefit is it runs under DOS.
    So does DJGPP and it is at least more compliant.

    The issue of DOS is not simplicity. The issue of DOS is lack of investment by the university on new equipments and software. And this alone derives mostly from the fact many universities don't recycle their teachers, being traditionally a stale environment drawn by antiquity, long time friendships, favors and everything else that a university shouldn't be. I know... I worked in one.

    The reason TC and Visual C++ 6.0 are so widely spread in universities is because your teachers where using it in their days and they didn't kept on pace with the developments. They aren't particularly good compilers, they aren't particularly useful or offer special features that help teaching. There's no educational value to them. But if you were to have MSVC, GCC, Watcom or Digital Mars, you would probably be out of teachers.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  5. #20
    The superhaterodyne twomers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    2,262
    >> You wanna test a simple LED based electric circuit. Ok. Attach it to parallel port. Run in DOS. Use the simplicity of a DOS based compiler. And be done with it. All such type of simple electronics projects, cheaper also.
    I know flashing LEDs are important parts of electronics and all, but you'll want a lot more than a parallel port if you're going to be doing anything interesting. And where does a uC come into your LEDs? Easiest thing to do when debugging something even slightly awkward is program the controller, with pre-processor debugging stuff* and have it send (via parallel/serial/usb), messages with flags in certain places in the code and read them on the PC as they come. Diagnose the problems, and fix 'em. Hardware debugging is much more difficult (I've found), than software debugging. But much more rewarding once the thing is finished - you've got something that physically operates by itself.

    * By which I mean:
    Code:
    //#define DEBUGGING_PROJECT
    
    //...
    
    // Somewhere in a function or something
    #ifdef DEBUGGING_PROJECT
    rs232_send( "something" );
    #endif

  6. #21
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    I really don't see the point of using TC 3.0 unless you are writing code for an 80x88 uC. Most common microcontrollers have GUI based compilers. I think the reason they use it is because its free, although with VS express out now thats a dubious reason.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  7. #22
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    The reason TC and Visual C++ 6.0 are so widely spread in universities is because your teachers where using it in their days and they didn't kept on pace with the developments.
    I can agree with this as being a problem, not having worked in a university yet I can't say oen way or the other if this happens, but i suspect it does at least to some extent. Universities should use the model that West Point uses. Only use your most successful commanders to teach, and do not have them teach for more than 2 years without rotating them back into the field. This keeps them from getting out of touch with new developments. This woudl be a bit of a problem with industry, because universities cant order the best and the brightest to come teach. Businesses however could require teaching experience for advancement. This woudl benefit them on several levels. One, it would reduce entrenchment, where a guy who is good enough to do his job, but not to advance blocks lower level workers from getting the experience they need to move past him. By requireing him to go teach, they would open the position for at least 2 years. Two, it would serve as a vetting tool, if the guy can't teach, then he isnt teaching his subordinates and isnt being an effective manager even if he is holding the ship together. Three, it woudl make sure that the new recruitsd are beign taught the latest methods. As is they learn outdated techniques, and the company ends up retraining them anyway. How effective they do this falls back on number 2, how well their superior can teach.
    Last edited by abachler; 05-24-2008 at 09:12 AM.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  8. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    890
    Quote Originally Posted by mike_g View Post
    Seriously, degrees are for retards.
    Generalize much?

  9. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,129
    I don't see what's wrong with using TC to learn with. Unless you're learning C++.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Human brain and programing
    By avgprogamerjoe in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 08-27-2007, 04:48 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-30-2006, 11:30 AM
  3. Idiot's Guide To Bitmap Textures?
    By Krak in forum Game Programming
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-19-2003, 09:46 AM
  4. Re: Girlfriend Post
    By PsychoBrat in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 05-13-2002, 06:11 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21