Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Paul Rubin Newsgroups: comp.arch.embedded,sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:03:28 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 18 Message-ID: <87shuu8csf.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> References: <2f6hpbpm1s02t4a9l4polr45otiui9fthi@4ax.com> <87wpk68nu4.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="52eac348160ce62b68e4635eee7cc854"; logging-data="20806"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/r7+hajhyl9fs6GXXZd5q6" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:sJhGmacwKPWpZh/q8u6d4cwqV1k= sha1:ECl+w2FARD/u7aqJUHTUlFYxpys= Xref: csiph.com comp.arch.embedded:24744 sci.electronics.design:420554 Les Cargill writes: > There are a lot of choices. ARM Mx, PICxx. PICxx has many of the same > single-source problems as AVR, but I've never caught them in the same > "new revs are different" trap as with AVR. The smaller PICs seem horrible to program. AVR and ARM at least have decent gcc-based tool chains. As mentioned, I don't know of ARM parts directly comparable to the more popular AVR's (PDIP packages for breadboard prototyping, 5-volt tolerant i/o, etc). ARMs also seem more complex to program than AVR (e.g. in terms of the stuff required on startup) but maybe that's my imagination. I was a fan of the TI MSP430 line for a while, since it has a nicer cpu architecture and some unique features, but again the available parts don't have the configuration and packaging options that the AVRs do. Plus, I think recent ARMs have surpassed the 430's in power efficiency despite being 32 bits wide instead of 16. TI itself seems to be moving away from the 430 line towards the Cortex M4.