ComputerVoltageSources

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "drmabuce" <drmabuce@...>
Subject: Re: Microprocessors in analog modules
[snip]
>
> i think it's worthwhile  to ask how many folks would prefer graphic
> development to low-level MBASIC or C or Forth coding.***
> The number might justify the effort of a (ie) graphic-to-MBASIC
> compiler .... to someone!
> ...
> ***and then just to be a smartass we should ask how many people would
> prefer to develop direcly in assembler .... or.... OR THE PROCESSOR
> CODE.... WOW!!!!!! that stuff's REALLY FAST!!!!!
> uh....
> MBASIC still gets my vote BTW
> ;'>


As one wag put it, lower level languages give you the answer quicker, but
later. ;-)

MBASIC on the Atom Pro is fast enough for most of our purposes here. If a
need arises for particular routines to written in a lower level language,
I'd be willing to give it a go. Coding "to the bare metal" can be fun in
limited amounts.

Forth was brought up on the Synth-DIY list, as I recall. It's pretty obscure
to most folks but quite popular for embedded systems. A CVS* is an embedded
system, no? The cool thing about Forth is that hardcore programmers can
create a set of custom commands which can then be used by everyone else. So,
the pioneers have a steep slope to climb, but they are able to build a lift
for everyone else -- in theory, anyway. (Note: I am not suggesting that
Forth be the language of choice, especially since I don't know it! Heh...
MBASIC works, and it's pretty darn fast on the Atom Pro.)

Not to get all off-topic and nostalgic, but... my first languages were the
Apple ][ BASICs (Integer and Applesoft) and 6502 machine code and assembler,
more or less at the same time, way back in 19mumblemumble...
--
john


* CVS = Computer Voltage Source