Talk:PIC microcontrollers

Size of Chips Shown with Coin

Hi, sorry this isn't very important but just wanted to say that showing the size of an object by comparing it to a coin is not a good idea on Wikipedia because many people may have never seen that type of coin (i.e. they use different size coins in their country of origin).

A ruler like the second image is better, as long we can see what units it's in (centimetres or inches).

I'm not trying to be pedantic, it just crossed my mind that's all! :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.6.189 (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Macros and Performance

I don't believe the statement, "Judicious use of simple macros can make PIC assembly language much more palatable, but at the cost of a reduction in performance." is accurate. Compiler macros should not impact performance since the compiler just expands the macro into the instructions that would have been used anyway and would not thus impact runtime performance in the way that a BASIC interpreter would work (such as the BASIC STAMP).--P Todd (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this phrase relates to programming in assembler language and then it is mostly true. I agree with you for C-language. NobbiP (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

External links

OpenSourcePIC.org has almost no viable content (only two articles), not to mention their support forum returns 404 errors and the Wiki no longer exists. I believe it is in the interests of PIC enthusiasts to replace OpenSourcePIC.org with digital-diy.com Open Source PIC Projects and Programs.

digital-diy.com is a little new, though it is completely add free and has lots of viable content (over 100 articles between the PIC Programming, Handy Tips, and Projects sections). It also has an open source community based approach, where people can contribute articles, post comments, or chat in the forums. Betatester228 (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• We were one of the orignal developers of tools for picmicro. With wide acceptance across the community. There were serveral books written around our products and PICmicros. Would our link to some of the books or our site in the external links section or referrence be acceptable? Http://www.basicmicro.com

[1] contains a list of different PIC Microcontroller based projects. Every project is cleared described with the circuit diagram, source code in C language and working videos. Will it be helpful for Wikipedia readers to explore more on PIC microcontroller and practicing practicals on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.244.148 (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed Spam

There were plenty of spam-like external links/products starting to lurk into the wiki, I've removed a few straight forward ones, though I personally believe there's more to go. 115.69.0.101 (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

First Micro based on EEPROM memory???

I do not agree with the statement "The Microchip 16C84 (PIC16x84), introduced in 1993 [6] was the first[citation needed] CPU with on-chip EEPROM memory"

The MC68HC11 introduced by Motorola in 1985 (I.E. 8 years earlier) was available with EEPROM program memory - "E" suffix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.141.204 (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

POV

I was alarmed at the extensive negative POV of this article, I cleaned up the more blatant bashing and added a brief list of positive aspects to offset the "Limitations" section. I spent a good deal of time on it and I believe I have brought this article closer to neutral POV. DavesPlanet (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? This article sounds like advertising material.98.95.155.10 (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong

"Execution time can be accurately estimated by multiplying the number of instructions by two cycles" is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.69.66 (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.70.237 (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit warring

This warning has been placed here because some recent edits appear to be good-faith attempts to improve the page while others seem to have the appearance of edit warring. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

• Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There are other web sites out there that are supposed to specialize in links. This isn' tone of them. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And see WP:EL which says in part ... Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. Many options are available; the Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{dmoz}} template. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I am with Wtshymanski on this one. If you read the policies he references above, a big chunk of what is currently on this page should be deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Wtshymanski's interpretation of the policy. The "stable" state of this page is the way it existed on October 30th, which is sans external links. Atomsmith (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Still could use some trimming, though. Do we really need the instruction set tables? Guy Macon (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Late edits / undo's by Wtshymanski and me (fransschreuder)

I have lately undone some edits from user Wtshymanski on this page because he removed a lot of useful information about open source software and programmers regarding the PIC microcontroller. The editor removed (on 15 March 2011) a whole paragraph about third party programmers, and the one of open source tools.

Because Wtshymanski seems to be editing pages all day long, he keeps putting back his own edits, resulting in a couple of undo's / warring. I do agree that a long list of links is not wanted on a wikipedia page, but some information on how you can actually program a PIC and which tools to find is something that I would usually be looking for on wikipedia.

Maybe a separate page about PIC development tools and PIC Programmers (maybe two pages) might also be another solution. What do you think?

Wtshymanski has been a problem for all of us who edit engineering and technology articles for a long time. He has become quite the expert at staying just within the rules while still making Wikipedia a hostile place. That's why you see him posting bogus arguments - he has no intention of actually working cooperatively, but he knows that when someone complains about his behavior, an admin will check to see if he is "discussing" things on the talk page. All he needs to do is to make it look technical enough so the admin can't follow the argument.

The best response to Wtshymanski's ongoing disruptive behavior is twofold: First, become very familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and make sure your own behavior is squeaky-clean. (see WP:BOOMERANG). Second, insist that he also follow the rules. If you get frustrated, drop me a line on my userpage. I am confident that eventually an admin will identify the chaos Wtshymanski is causing and will apply some behavioral restrictions such as a topic ban or a 1RR restriction.

I think a separate page titled "List of PIC development tools" would be a very good thing. I suggest that you be WP:BOLD and go ahead and create it. IMO two pages are not needed, just a section on hardware development tools and another section on software development tools. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

inline references

More inline references would help. I had to check each reference to find the reference for the instruction set. Also, the special purpose register table, or a reference to it.203.206.162.148 (talk) 05:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)