A newbie? They are going to write "a = a + b" and a thing called a C compiler will turn that into the necessary four AVR instructions. Instructions which the newbie will never see or be aware of.
Yes, C compiler hide it, but if you attach with debugger you will see that STM32 doing it with a single instruction, while 8-bit CPU requires several instructions to calculate 32-bit integers.
And you will need to know it in order to understand why 32-bit MCU do it much faster even if you configure both 32-bit and 8-bit MCU for the same clock frequency...
For a newbie learning to understand the AVR based ones definitely is easier just because the core is simpler and the peripherals are simpler.
So lets just leave it at that and stop polluting this thread with personal believes about what you think he or any other newbie should do.
You clearly don’t see or understand the value of getting a beginner going with a low barrier to entry. Early successes are encouraging, and make the learner experience that they can get it to do something.
Yes, I don't see any barriers here to entry for beginners. The only barrier here is a mind lock like "it looks unclear and not familiar for me, so I don't want to look into it and don't want to learn it". This is not a barrier, but just an unwillingness to learn something new.
Supercharged V12's go faster at the same RPM than 4 cylinders, but 90% of people drive 4 cylinder. They get the job done.
I just wonder, why you're trying to hide info that there are other solutions?
Why you're impose this limited arduino solution as the only and uncontested way that a beginner should do?
try to program the Raspberry PI bare metal
Quotetry to program the Raspberry PI bare metal
Respectfully disagree, bare metal raspberry pi is simple with Circle: https://github.com/rsta2/circle
And what you’re pushing for in subsequent replies is the exact opposite of what any sane beginner would do. You clearly have ZERO clue about how to educate, so I sincerely hope you are never in a position to be training beginners.
I suspect, however, that trying to get you to understand this is as pointless as discussing “analog vs digital” with you, in that the fact that the entire rest of the planet disagrees with you isn’t sufficient to make you reconsider your viewpoint.
The comparison between ZX spectrum and Raspberry PI is very lame and bares no weight here. Both these systems run on an OS. Basic for the first one and mostly Linux for the latter. This makes things a lot easier. Go and try to program the Raspberry PI bare metal, without any prior knowledge. It will be much harder than doing it on a ZX spectrum. The needed information is much easier to find for a Z80 based system.
But as others have already concluded you are pulling our chains and that is what is called trolling.
I have seen this behavior of you in other threads too and a lot of the more active members state to take everything you write with a grain of salt, or negate the advice to do the exact opposite.
Thanks for the replies.
Some background: About 50 years ago I had a 6502 board and I did quite a bit with it, all programming in assembler. Then about 30 Years ago, with PCs, Windows, etc I lost the ability to interface with the real outside world and i kept thinking how I could do it. About 25 years ago I bought a Velleman K8055 board,
https://www.velleman.eu/products/view/?country=uk&lang=en&id=351346
which I still have, but I never did much with it after my first playing around.
... ...
The OP, in this follow up reply (reply #8 on this tread) says he did 6502 assembler on a 6502 experiment board. So he knows how to develop program with limited feature, limited resources, and limited assistance (50 yr ago, no google search for help).
I've ordered STM32 board and an STLink programmer and I'm curious to see how pleasant or unpleasant, slow or fast the toolchain and overall development experience is going to be.
I'd rather use an anemic Arduino Nano, because it compies and flashes quickly, than a powerful device with a slow, complicated toolchain and massive flash that takes half a minute to reflash.
Compile Firefox from source on Linux.
Compile Firefox from source on Linux.
I wanted to compile it, but unfortunately download source code was failed due to not enough GB of free disk space. When I started download archive I didn't expected that archive will eat several GB of free disk space, but it also require even more space to unzip it...
There is no need to pick one. When we get Windows vs. Linux debates, it's pointless the answer to "Which is best?", is "Both". Next!
Compile Firefox from source on Linux.
I wanted to compile it, but unfortunately download source code was failed due to not enough GB of free disk space. When I started download archive I didn't expected that archive will eat several GB of free disk space, but it also require even more space to unzip it...
LOL, wait till you are multiple hours into the compile and it fails because it consumed >10Gb of disk.
Back when I actually worked for Mozilla in 2009, Firefox took around 10 minutes to build on my quad core i7-860. I imagine on my current *laptop* it would be 2 or 3 minutes.
What kind of computer are you guys using?
Back when I actually worked for Mozilla in 2009, Firefox took around 10 minutes to build on my quad core i7-860. I imagine on my current *laptop* it would be 2 or 3 minutes.
And SSDs today cost 6c/GB, 10c/GB for a really good one. If you're still on 3.5" hard disks, 4TB ones are $70 ... less than 2c/GB.